Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


37 records – page 3 of 4.

Health Canada consultation on tobacco products regulations (plain and standardized appearance)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13930
Date
2018-09-06
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2018-09-06
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission in response to Health Canada’s proposed regulations entitled Tobacco Products Regulations (Plain and Standardized Appearance) and an Order to amend Schedule 1 to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act with respect to colouring agents, in Canada Gazette, Part 1. Canada's physicians have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use and for the past 30 years we have reiterated our long-standing support for the concept of tobacco products being sold in standardized packages in several briefs and policy statements. The CMA has been a leader in advocating for plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products for many years. We established our position in 1986 in a resolution recommending to the federal government “that all tobacco products be sold in plain packages of standard size with the words "this product is injurious to your health" printed in the same size lettering as the brand name, and that no extraneous information be printed on the package.” We are pleased to support the proposed regulations and that they will apply to the packaging of all tobacco products and that brand colours, graphics and logos will be prohibited on packages. No exceptions, including for cigars and pipe tobacco, should be considered. These measures will assist in promoting harm reduction efforts and further the goal of reducing and eliminating smoking. In 2017, 16.2% of Canadians aged 12 and older smoked either daily or occasionally; this is down from 17.7% in 2015. These proposed regulations will be a significant step in the goal of further reducing the smoking rate. However, there are three areas that the CMA would like to see strengthened and are described below. Slide and Shell Packaging – Minimum package dimensions and warning surface area The CMA supports strongly the concept of tobacco products being sold in standardized packages. We recommended that only the “slide-and-shell” style of package be authorized and that the “flip-top” package be removed. This would reduce the permitted style to one type and allow for the largest possible surface area to be used to convey health warnings and other health-related information. With respect to the draft regulation (s.39) concerning the dimensions of the new packages when closed, the CMA recommends that the measurements for the regular and king size cigarette packages be amended to allow for more surface area for warnings and to standardize packaging regulations across all Canadian jurisdictions.1 The Quebec requirement for a warning surface area of 46.5 sq. cm should be the minimum across Canada. To achieve that, we suggest that the new slide and shell package for regular size cigarettes have the following dimensions when it is closed: (a) its height must be no less than 74 mm and no more than 77 mm; (b) its width must be no less than 84 mm and no more than 87 mm for a package of 20 cigarettes, and no less 103mm and no more than 106 mm for a package of 25 cigarettes. A similar adjustment is recommended for the width of packages of king size cigarettes when closed: (a) its width must be no less than 83 mm and no more than 87 mm for a package of 20 cigarettes, and no less 103mm and no more than 106 mm for a package of 25 cigarettes. In both cases, this is over and above the dimensions in s.39 (1)(a) and (b) for regular size cigarettes and s.39(2)(b) for king size cigarettes. We also recommend that the number of cigarettes permitted in both package sizes be limited to 20 and 25 respectively, reflecting the quantities sold in the current market. This would also prohibit manufacturers from adding one or two additional cigarettes as a “bonus” or “premium.” Brand names The appearance of brand names on the packages should be in a manner that is standard for all brands. Tobacco manufacturers should not be able to include terms such as “organic” or “natural” as part of a brand name. These descriptions would convey the perception that these products are somehow better or are healthier for the consumer. As well, they may be used to evoke a lifestyle or are fashionable. Such terms and phrases should be banned in the regulations; the European Union’s Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council could serve as the guide is this instance. Leaflets Tobacco manufacturers make frequent use of subtle marketing messages to render smoking attractive and glamorous to their customers. The CMA has always supported educational and public health initiatives aimed at countering these messages. Permitting a leaflet inside packages “that warns consumers of the health hazards arising from the use of the tobacco product or that provides instructions for its use” (draft regulation s. 36.3) is a positive step but should not provide manufacturers with a potential loophole to exploit. The draft regulation should be amended to indicate that the only instance where any instructions are permitted on the leaflet are when the product has an electronic component. This would prevent manufacturers from using the leaflet as any sort of a promotional platform to minimize, for example, the impact of health warnings on the package exterior. Summary Canada's physicians have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada and we are pleased to support the proposed regulations. We recommend that the draft regulations be strengthened in the following manner: 1) The measurements for the regular and king size cigarette packages be amended to allow for more surface area for warnings and to standardize packaging regulations across all Canadian jurisdictions. 2) The number of cigarettes permitted in both package sizes be limited to 20 and 25 respectively, reflecting the quantities sold in the current market. 3) Use of terms and phrases such as “organic” and “natural” in brand names should be banned in the regulations. 4) The only instance where any instructions are permitted on the proposed leaflets are when the product has an electronic component. Tobacco and Vaping Products Act: Tobacco Products Regulations (Plain and Standardized Appearance) Canada Gazette, Part I, 2018 Jun 23 152(25). Available: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2018/2018-06-23/html/reg9-eng.html (accessed 2018 Aug 7). Statistics Canada. Smoking, 2017 Health Fact Sheets Cat. No. 82-625-X June 26, Ottawa, Ont.: Statistics Canada, 2018. Available: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/82-625-x/2018001/article/54974-eng.pdf?st=7HkJdkUB (accessed 2018 Sep 5). Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Letter in response to Health Canada’s Consultation on “Plain and Standardized Packaging” for Tobacco Products. Potential Measures for Regulating the Appearance, Shape and Size of Tobacco Packages and of Tobacco Products. Document for Consultation. Ottawa: CMA; 2016. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Briefpdf/BR2016-09.pdf (accessed 2018 Aug 29). The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union. Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive. 2001/37/EC. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, 2014. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/tobacco/docs/dir_201440_en.pdf (accessed 2018 Sep 4).
Documents
Less detail

Health Canada consultation on vaping products labelling and packaging regulations

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14124
Date
2019-09-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2019-09-05
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) appreciates this opportunity to respond to the notice as published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1 for interested stakeholders to provide comments on Health Canada’s intent to establish a single set of regulations under the authorities of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act (TVPA) and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) with respect to the labelling and packaging of vaping products.1 Canada’s physicians, who see the devastating effects of tobacco use every day in their practices, have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use. The CMA has always supported strong, comprehensive tobacco control legislation, enacted and enforced by all levels of government, and we continue to do so. This includes electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Our approach to tobacco and vaping products is grounded in public health policy. We believe it is incumbent on all levels of government in Canada to continue working on comprehensive, coordinated and effective tobacco control strategies, including vaping products, to achieve the goal of reducing smoking prevalence. Introduction In our most recent brief, the CMA expressed its concerns regarding vaping and youth. This included marketing, flavours, nicotine levels, and reducing vaping and e-cigarette use among youths.2 In April 2019, the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health expressed alarm at the rising number of Canadian youths who are vaping, having found this trend “very troubling.”3 The CMA concurred with this assessment and supports Health Canada’s intention to further tighten the regulations.2 Identifying Vaping Substances The findings of a recent Canadian study indicate an increase in vaping among adolescents in Canada and the United States.4 The growing acceptance of this practice is of concern to the CMA because of the rapidly emerging popularity of vaping products such as JUUL® and similar devices.4 It will be very important to identify clearly on the packaging all the vaping substances contained therein, along with a list of ingredients, as not enough is known about the long-term effects users may face.5,6 Users need to know what they are consuming so they can make informed choices about the contents. Studies have found substances in e-cigarette liquids and aerosols such as “nicotine, solvent carriers (PG and glycerol), tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), aldehydes, metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenolic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), flavorings, tobacco alkaloids, and drugs.”7 Nicotine Content As Hammond et al noted in their recent study, “JUUL® uses benzoic acid and nicotine salt technology to deliver higher concentrations of nicotine than conventional e-cigarettes; indeed, the nicotine concentration in the standard version of JUUL® is more than 50 mg/mL, compared with typical levels of 3-24 mg/mL for other e-cigarettes.”4 The salts and flavours available to be used with these devices reduce the harshness and bitterness of the taste of the e-liquids. Some of its competition deliver even higher levels of nicotine.8 The CMA has expressed its concerns about the rising levels of nicotine available through the vaping process.2 They supply “high levels of nicotine with few of the deterrents that are inherent in other tobacco products. Traditional e-cigarette products use solutions with free-base nicotine formulations in which stronger nicotine concentrations can cause aversive user experiences.”9 The higher levels of nicotine in vaping devices is also of concern because it “affects the developing brain by increasing the risk of addiction, mood disorders, lowered impulse control, and cognitive impairment.”10,11 The CMA has called on Health Canada to restrict the level of nicotine in vaping products to avoid youth (and adults) from developing a dependence.2 4 Health Warnings The CMA reiterates, again, its position that health warnings for vaping should be similar to those for tobacco packages.12,13 We support placing warning labels on all vaping products, regardless of the size of the package. The “space given to the warnings should be sufficient to convey the maximum amount of information while remaining clear, visible, and legible. The warnings should be in proportion to the packaging available.”13 The need for such cautions is important as there is still much that is not known about the effects vaping can have on the human body. A US study found “evidence that using combusted tobacco cigarettes alone or in combination with e-cigarettes is associated with higher concentrations of potentially harmful tobacco constituents in comparison with using e-cigarettes alone.”14 Some researchers have found that there is “significant potential for serious lung toxicity from e-cig(arette) use.”15,16 Another recent US study indicates that “adults who report puffing e-cigarettes, or vaping, are significantly more likely to have a heart attack, coronary artery disease and depression compared with those who don’t use them or any tobacco products.”17 Further, it was found that “compared with nonusers, e-cigarette users were 56 percent more likely to have a heart attack and 30 percent more likely to suffer a stroke.17 A worrisome development has emerged in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working in consultation with the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Indiana, and Minnesota regarding a “cluster of pulmonary illnesses linked to e-cigarette product use, or “vaping,” primarily among adolescents and young adults.”18 Additional possible cases have been identified in other states and are being investigated. Child-Resistant Containers The CMA supports the need for child-resistant containers in order to enhance consumer safety; we have adopted a similar position with respect to cannabis in all forms.19,20 The need to include warning labels should reinforce the need for packaging these vaping products such that they will be inaccessible to small children. Recommendations 1. The CMA recommends more research into the health effects of vaping as well as on the components of the vaping liquids. 2. Health Canada should work to restrict the level of nicotine available for vaping products to avoid youth and adults from developing a dependence. 3. The CMA reiterates its position that health warnings for vaping should be like those being considered for tobacco packages. We support the proposed warning labels being placed on all vaping products. 4. The CMA recommends that all the vaping substances be identified clearly on the packaging, along with a list of ingredients. 5. The CMA supports the need for child-resistant containers. 5 1 Government of Canada. Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 153, Number 25: Vaping Products Labelling and Packaging Regulations. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2019. Available: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2019/2019-06-22/html/reg4-eng.html (accessed 2019 Jul 10). 2 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health Canada Consultation on Reducing Youth Access and Appeal of Vaping Products. Ottawa: CMA; 2019 May 24. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14078 (accessed 2019 Jul 10). 3 Public Health Agency of Canada. Statement from the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health on the increasing rates of youth vaping in Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2019. Available: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/statement-from-the-council-of-chief-medical-officers-of-health-on-the-increasing-rates-of-youth-vaping-in-canada-812817220.html (accessed 2019 Jul 24). 4 Hammond David, Reid Jessica L, Rynard Vicki L, et al. Prevalence of vaping and smoking among adolescents in Canada, England, and the United States: repeat national cross sectional surveys BMJ. 2019; 365:2219. Available: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/365/bmj.l2219.full.pdf (accessed 2019 Jul 24). 5 WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/326043/9789241516204-eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 6 Dinakar, C., O’Connor GT. The Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1372-81. Available: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1502466 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 7 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public health consequences of e-cigarettes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes (accessed 2019 Jul 29). 8 Jackler RK, Ramamurthi D. Nicotine arms race: JUUL and the high-nicotine product market Tob Control 2019;0:1–6. 9 Barrington-Trimis JL, Leventhal AM. Adolescents’ Use of “Pod Mod” E-Cigarettes —Urgent Concerns. N Engl J Med 2018; 379:1099-1102. Available: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1805758?articleTools=true (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 10 Chen-Sankey JC, Kong G, Choi K. Perceived ease of flavored e-cigarette use and ecigarette use progression among youth never tobacco users. PLoS ONE 2019;14(2): e0212353. Available: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212353 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2016. Available: https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_sgr_full_report_non-508.pdf (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 12 Canadian Medical Association (CMA) CMA’s Recommendations for Bill S-5: An Act to amend the Tobacco Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Ottawa: CMA; 2017 Apr 7. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13641 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 13 Canadian Medical Association. Health Canada consultation on tobacco products regulations (plain and standardized appearance) Ottawa: CMA; 2018 Sep 6. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13930 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 14 Goniewicz ML. et al. Comparison of Nicotine and Toxicant Exposure in Users of Electronic Cigarettes and Combustible Cigarettes JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(8):e185937. Available: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2718096 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 15 Chan LF. Et al. Pulmonary toxicity of e-cigarettes Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 313: L193–L206, 2017 Available: https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajplung.00071.2017 (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 16 Li D, Sundar IK, McIntosh S, et al. Association of smoking and electronic cigarette use with wheezing and related respiratory symptoms in adults: cross-sectional results from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study, wave 2. Tob Control. 0:1-8, 2019. 17 American College of Cardiology. E-Cigarettes Linked to Heart Attacks, Coronary Artery Disease and Depression. Media Release March 7, 2019 Available: https://www.acc.org/about-acc/press-releases/2019/03/07/10/03/ecigarettes-linked-to-heart-attacks-coronary-artery-disease-and-depression (accessed 2019 Jul 30). 18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, states investigating severe pulmonary disease among people who use e-cigarettes. Media Statement 2019 Aug 17. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0817-pulmonary-disease-ecigarettes.html (accessed 2019 Aug 20). 19 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health Canada Consultation on Edible Cannabis, Extracts & Topicals Ottawa: CMA; 2019 Feb 20. Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14020 (accessed 2019 Aug 6). 20 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Proposed Approach to the Regulation of Cannabis Submission to Health Canada. 2018 Jan 19 Available: https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13838. (accessed 2019 Aug 6).
Documents
Less detail

Health Canada’s consultation on new health-related labelling for tobacco products

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13939
Date
2018-12-14
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2018-12-14
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission in response to Health Canada’s Consultation on “New Health-Related Labelling for Tobacco Products - Document for Consultation, October 2018”. Canada's physicians have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use and for the past 30 years we have reiterated our long-standing support for the concept of tobacco products being sold in standardized packages in several briefs and policy statements. Our response will follow the questions posed in the consultation document. Labelling on Individual Cigarettes Displaying a warning on individual cigarettes provides another means of conveying important health warnings about the hazards of smoking. The warnings should be like those that will be displayed on the leaflets included in the cigarette packages as well as the packages themselves. They should be of sufficient size, font and colour that will draw the attention of the smoker to the message. They should also be placed as close to the filter end of the cigarette as possible to remain visible for as long as possible. Health Information Messages The CMA has always supported educational and public health initiatives aimed at countering tobacco manufacturers messages that would render smoking attractive and glamorous to their customers. The health information messages and any leaflets included in the package must be of sufficient size, colour and font to prevent manufacturers from using the leaflet as any sort of a promotional platform to minimize, for example, the impact of health warnings on the package exterior. The CMA supports strongly the concept of tobacco products being sold in standardized packages and we have recommended that only the “slide-and-shell” style of package be authorized and that the “flip-top” package be removed. This would allow for the largest possible surface area to be used to convey health warnings and other health-related information. The CMA has recommended that the measurements for the regular and king size cigarette packages be amended to allow for more surface area for warnings and to standardize packaging regulations across all Canadian jurisdictions. Toxic Statements (Includes Toxic Emissions Statements and Toxic Constituents Statements) The size, colour and design of new Toxic Statements proposed in the consultation document should be sufficient to be read and easily understood. The Statements should be rotated periodically to include new and updated information related to emissions and toxic constituents. Connecting Labelling Elements/ Quitline Information Tobacco manufacturers make frequent use of subtle marketing messages to render smoking attractive and glamorous, especially to young people. The CMA supports packages displaying prominent, simple and powerful health warnings, such as the graphic pictorial warnings, as well as quit tips and information on product content and health risks.2 Connecting the themes should help to reinforce the messages being conveyed with these labels. The size, colour, and placement of the proposed quitline and website information should be sufficient to maximize the noticeability of the information on various types of tobacco product packaging. Percentage of Coverage/Minimum Size of Health Warnings on Tobacco Products Other than Cigarettes and Little Cigars The amount of space given to the warnings should be sufficient to convey the maximum amount of information while remaining clear, visible, and legible. The warnings should be in proportion to the packaging available, like that of a regular cigarette package. Labelling for All Tobacco Products that Do Not Currently Require Labels The CMA supports mandatory health warnings being applied equally to all tobacco products. If package size allows, Health Warnings, Health Information Messages, and Toxic Statements should all be included. The messages should be relevant to the types of tobacco products they are covering. Labelling Rotation The rotation timeframe suggested in the consultation document of 12 to 18 months is a reasonable period. Government of Canada. New Health-Related Labelling for Tobacco Products. Document for Consultation Ottawa: Health Canada; 2018. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-tobacco-labelling.html (accessed 2018 Oct 29). Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Tobacco Control (Update 2008). Ottawa: The Association; 2008. Available: http:// policybase.cma.ca /dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD08-08.pdf (accessed 2018 Dec 5). Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Letter in response to Health Canada’s Consultation on “Plain and Standardized Packaging” for Tobacco Products. Potential Measures for Regulating the Appearance, Shape and Size of Tobacco Packages and of Tobacco Products. Document for Consultation. Ottawa: The Association; 2016. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Briefpdf/BR2016-09.pdf (accessed 2018 Nov 19). Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health Canada Consultation on Tobacco Products Regulations (Plain and Standardized Appearance). Ottawa: The Association; 2018. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Briefpdf/BR2019-01.pdf (accessed 2018 Nov 19). Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Policy Resolution BD88-03-64 - Smokeless tobacco. Ottawa: The Association; 1987. Available: https://tinyurl.com/y7eynl5q (accessed 2018 Dec 5).
Documents
Less detail

Health Canada’s Consultation on “Plain and Standardized Packaging”

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13817
Date
2016-08-12
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-08-12
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission in response to Health Canada’s Consultation on “Plain and Standardized Packaging” for Tobacco Products. Potential Measures for Regulating the Appearance, Shape and Size of Tobacco Packages and of Tobacco Products. Document for Consultation, May 2016. Canada's physicians have been working for decades toward the goal of a smoke-free Canada. The CMA issued its first public warning concerning the hazards of tobacco in 1954 and has continued to advocate for the strongest possible measures to control its use. The CMA has been a leader in advocating for plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products for many years. We established our position in 1986 when we passed a resolution at our General Council in Vancouver recommending to the federal government “that all tobacco products be sold in plain packages of standard size with the words "this product is injurious to your health" printed in the same size lettering as the brand name, and that no extraneous information be printed on the package.” Over the past 30 years we have reiterated our long-standing support for the concept of tobacco products being sold in standardized packages in several briefs and policy statements. The current Health Canada proposal will help realize that goal and the CMA supports the measures outlined in the consultation paper. There are two elements that the CMA recommend be addressed in this consultation. The CMA recommends that only the “slide-and-shell” style of package be authorized and that the “flip-top” package be removed. This would reduce the permitted style to one standard package and allow for the largest possible surface area to be used to convey health warnings and other health-related information. In a similar vein, the CMA recommends a single allowable length of cigarette and that a minimum diameter or width be established. The purpose is to eliminate the sale of “slims” and “super slims” cigarettes to eliminate the possibility of these products as being considered “healthier.” While the CMA supports these measures, they must be part of the overall goal of further reducing and eliminating smoking. These measures will be an essential element of a sustained, well-funded and comprehensive program to reduce tobacco use, combining policy interventions with educational and social-marketing interventions including mass media campaigns. These programs should reflect current best practices, and be evaluated regularly for effectiveness and impact. To that end, the CMA calls on the federal government to renew the Tobacco Strategy before it expires in March 2017. At the same time, the CMA also recommends that the government allocate adequate funding to ensure implementation of the strategy. Finally, the consultation paper closes with some potential challenges to the implementation of these proposals. With respect to the problem of counterfeit cigarettes, all levels of government should take the strongest possible measures to control the sale and distribution of contraband tobacco, on their own and in cooperation with other affected jurisdictions. The problem of retailers having difficulty implementing the regulations, resulting in service delays to their customers, is not really an issue related to these proposals. It is very doubtful that the retailers will experience such problems for very long and will find ways of resolving such difficulties. As for the problem of the manufacturers continuing to innovate in order to circumvent these measures, there should be sufficient enforcement tools within the regulations that will enable Health Canada to deal with such infractions. The Canadian Medical Association remains committed to working with governments and stakeholders to address this issue. We reiterate our long-standing support for plain and standardized packaging for tobacco products. In summary, the CMA recommends that: 1) only the “slide-and-shell” style of package be authorized and that the “flip-top” package be removed; 2) a single allowable length of cigarette and that a minimum diameter or width be established; 3) the federal government renew the Tobacco Strategy before it expires in March 2017 and that that the government allocate adequate funding to ensure implementation of the strategy. Sincerely, Jeff Blackmer, MD, MHSc, FRCPC Vice-President, Medical Professionalism
Vice-président, Professionnalisme médicale Canadian Medical Association
Association médicale canadienne
Documents
Less detail

Implementation of National Pharmacare

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13933
Date
2018-10-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2018-10-02
Topics
Health care and patient safety
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare (Advisory Council) on the issues set out in its discussion paper.1 The striking of the Advisory Council by the federal government is long overdue. We will focus on the questions set out in the discussion paper and draw attention to more specific issues that the Advisory Council should consider as it develops its final report. At the outset, Canada’s physicians are very concerned about their patients’ access to prescription medicines. A June 2018 survey of the CMA member e-panel found the following:
71% reported that they always/often ask their patients if they have prescription drug coveragebefore writing a prescription;
60% reported that greater than 20% of their patients are either uncovered or inadequatelycovered for prescription drugs; and
79% reported that copayments pose affordability challenges among their patients with drugcoverage and that they resort to a variety of strategies to help them. Indeed, when asked to pick one of three options for a national prescription program, the results were as follows:
57% - a single, national, public pharmacare plan operated by the federal government and fundedby taxes collected by the federal government;
34% - a mix of private prescription drug plans operated by private insurance companies andpublic drug plans run by the provinces and territories, supplemented by a prescription drug planprovided by the federal government for persons with high out-of-pocket drug costs; and
9% - separate regional, public pharmacare plans in each province and territory, funded by taxescollected by both the federal government and the provincial governments. Who should be covered under national pharmacare? / How should national pharmacare be delivered? The CMA’s position is that all Canadians should have access to medically necessary drugs regardless of their ability to pay. The challenge is how to resolve the issue of the most expedient and affordable means of achieving this in a manner that is acceptable to the provincial/territorial governments. At the present time there are two main options that are being discussed. The first is the approach recommended by the Standing Committee on Health (HESA) that calls for the development of a common national prescription drug formulary and the amendment of the Canada Health Act to include out-of-hospital prescription drugs in the definition of insured health services; essentially a universal, single public payer program.2 The second is the “closing the gap” or “catastrophic coverage” approach recommended previously by the Kirby and Romanow commissions, and which was one of the unfulfilled commitments that First Ministers made in the 2003 Health Accord. There is a large difference in the cost of these two approaches. Regarding the first, the federal Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has estimated the net cost to the federal government of assuming the cost of a pharmacare program modelled on the Quebec drug formulary at $19.3 billion in 2015-16, increasing to $22.6 billion in 2020-21.3 Regarding the second approach, in 2002 the Kirby commission suggested that a catastrophic drug program with a cap of 3% of family income would cost $500 million per year.4 A 2015 study by the Conference Board estimated that a program with a cap of 3% of household income or $1,500 would cost the federal government $1.6 billion in 2016, increasing to $1.8 billion in 2020.5 There are parallels between the present situation with insurance coverage for prescription drugs and the insurance coverage for medical services that existed at the time of the Hall Commission (1961-1964). 4 In 1961 there were 9.6 million Canadians with some form of medical insurance or prepayment coverage, representing 53% of the population.6 Almost one-half of this number (4.5 million) were covered by the physician-sponsored not-for-profit Trans-Canada Medical Plans.7 In its 1962 brief to the Hall Commission the CMA projected that this percentage would increase to 67% by 1970 and it recommended a “closing the gap” approach for the uninsured and under-insured: That, for the 1,520,000 persons, or approximately 8% of Canada’s population who may adjudged to be medically indigent, tax funds be used to provide comprehensive medical insurance on services…for persons in economic circumstances just superior to the identifiable indigent we recommend the application of tax funds on proof of need to permit the partial assistance which they require.8 After Hall reported in 1964 with the recommendation of first dollar public Medicare, as they say, the rest is history. More than 50 years after the initial passage of the Medical Care Act in 1966, virtually nobody would suggest that Canada got it wrong. In the case of pharmacare today, the circumstances are somewhat different. First the prevalence of prescription drug insurance is much higher today than medical insurance was back in the early 1960s. A 2017 report from the Conference Board estimates that just 5.2% of Canadians are uninsured for prescription drugs.9 Other survey estimates indicate that roughly one in 10 Canadians report financial difficulty in filling prescriptions10, although some surveys have yielded higher results, such as a September, 2018 Abacus Data poll that found that 23% of Canadians reported that the medicines they need are unaffordable.11 Second, the role of the provincial/territorial (PT) governments paying for prescription drugs today is much greater than their role in paying for medical services prior to Medicare. In 1961 it was estimated that all public sources accounted for 12.4% of medical care expenditures.12 In 2017, PT governments accounted for an estimated 37% of prescription drug spending.13 It is also instructive to consider how Medicare ramped up from its initial spending under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1958-59 through to the first payments under the Medical Care Act a decade later, shown in Table 1. The table shows clearly that Medicare payments increased gradually over the two stages. Medicare as a share of total federal program spending increased from 1% in 1958-59 to a high of 11% in 1971-72. Interestingly, federal spending on Medicare never reached the 50/50 cost-sharing that was offered, reaching 36% in 1976-77, the year prior to the Established Programs Financing Act coming into effect. As an aside, according to the 2017 Fall Economic statement the Canada Health Transfer, valued at $37.1 billion in 2017-18 represents 12.2% of program spending.14 This history highlights the need to consider how the federal government might phase in the program recommended by HESA given the cost estimated by the PBO at $19.3 billion. This appears a daunting challenge in light of the recent increases in federal health funding, which amount to annual increases in the Canada Health Transfer of just over $1 billion plus the $11 billion allocated in the 2017 federal budget over a 10-year period for home care and mental health.15 There is no disagreement that at the present time the fiscal prospects are better for the federal than the PT governments. In its 2018 Fiscal Sustainability Report, the PBO reported that over the 2018-92 projection period the federal government could either increase annual spending or reduce taxes by 1.4% of Gross Domestic Product ($29 billion) and maintain its net debt at the current (2017) level.16 However, the government has many other spending priorities. Conversely, sub-national governments would be required to either increase taxes or reduce spending by 0.8% of GDP or ($18 billion) to maintain net debt at the current level. The CMA has previously recommended that the federal government pursue a “close the gap” approach in partnership with the PT governments and the private insurance industry. This approach could be scaled up toward a full national public pharmacare by either or both of lowering the household income threshold or raising the level of federal contribution.17 However this has never developed any serious momentum. While the first Ministers committed in their 2003 Accord to take measures, by the end of 2005/06 to ensure that Canadians, wherever they live, have reasonable access to catastrophic coverage,18 this ran aground with the first and only progress report of the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy in 2006.19 It was 5 evident in the report that much of the current public funding had been shifted into the catastrophic category, ranging from $6.6 billion to $10.3 billion across the four scenarios presented. The only further public PT government pronouncement on a catastrophic drug plan was a three-point proposal set out in a backgrounder for the PT health Ministers meeting in 2008 calling for a funding formula that would: protect the autonomy of the PTs in program design; set a ceiling of 5% of income; and recognize the federal government’s role as an equal partner with 50/50 cost sharing of a total estimate cost of $5.03 billion (2006).20 The amount of $5.03 billion would have represented 62% of PT spending on prescription drugs in 2006. More recently, an “essential medicines” approach to universal pharmacare has been put forward by Morgan and colleagues, modelled on 2015 data. Essential medicines are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population.21 WHO maintains a model list of essential medicines, and the 2017 version contains some 430 medications.22 Using a multi-step review process, Taglione and colleagues adapted the 2013 version of the WHO list to produce a shorter list of 125 medications that they assessed against the prescription audits of two Toronto-based family health teams comprising 4,777 and 35,554 patients in 2014. They reported 90.8% and 92.6% coverage with the preliminary list of 125 medications in the two sites respectively.23 The list is now called the CLEAN Meds list (http://cleanmeds.ca/). Morgan and colleagues used 117 items from the CLEAN Meds list to model the impact of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to the existing public drug plans in Canada, based on 2015 data. They reported the following base case results:
Total public expenditure would increase by $1.229 billion to $11.99 billion;
Total private expenditure would decrease by $4.272 billion to $11.172 billion; and
Public expenditure on essential medicines would be $6.14 billion, representing 51% of the total$12 billion in total public expenditure.24 In further research conducted for the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), Morgan examined the listing of the CLEAN Meds list across the public formularies in Canada for 2015 and found that the public plans listed 93% on average of the 125 medicines, and that this increased to 98% when weighted by drug plan costs.25 The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa has done a similar analysis of 128 medications on the CLEAN Meds list and coverage ranged across provinces from Manitoba at the bottom (with 88 covered completely and 8 requiring special authorization) to Quebec at the top with coverage of 121 items.26 This would suggest that one approach would be for the federal government to offer to cover universal coverage for essential medicines, which would cost at least $6 billion. There would be coordination issues with both public and private plans, as was the case when Ontario introduced OHIP + in early 2018 to extend coverage to persons under 25.27 This could be subsequently scaled up by adding coverage for additional medications. In terms of how pharmacare should be delivered, that will depend on how far the federal government wants to go. Could the federal government administer a national pharmacare program? It already controls levers including drug approval by Health Canada and price-setting through the PMPRB, and it provides the majority (70%) of funding to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and Health which oversees the Common Drug Review.28 In May, 2015 Canadian Blood Services (CBS) CEO Dr. Graham Sher proposed that CBS could be considered as a model for national pharmacare, given its history of running a national (except Quebec) formulary of plasma protein drugs at no cost to patients.29 In his subsequent testimony to the HESA pharmacare study Sher described CBS’ success in negotiating price reductions through public tendering and bulk purchasing’ although he did also note that their formulary includes 45 brands and classes of plasma protein products, far fewer than the thousands of items in PT formularies.30 More recently Flood et al. have suggested that one option for pharmacare could involve the PT governments delegating authority to an arm’s-length agency similar to CBS that would purchase drugs and administer drug benefits.31 6 However, in the comuniqué following their June 2018 meeting the PT health Ministers emphasized that provinces and territories must retain responsibility for the design and delivery of public drug coverage…Quebec will maintain its own program and will receive comparable compensation if the federal government puts a pan-Canadian program in place.32 This was repeated by the Premiers in their communiqué three weeks later, which would suggest that a national agency approach is a non-starter. Moreover, none of the PT drug plans testified to the HESA pharmacare study. One issue that has received scant attention in all of the discussions about pharmacare since 2015 is the future role of private supplementary health insurance. When Medicare came in in the late 1960s, while the expenditures increased steadily, enrolment in non-profit medical insurance plans disappeared virtually overnight, dropping from 8.3 million enrollees in 1968 to 1.1 million in 1970 and none thereafter.33 This appears unlikely to happen to private insurance in the foreseeable future. For example, in the essential medicines modeling done by Morgan et al. the essential medicines would represent just 27% of total prescription drug expenditures and all public drug expenditures would account for 52% of the total.24 If the federal and PT governments were able to collectively “wave a magic wand” and come up with the PBO’s $19.3 billion and a purchasing and distribution strategy it seems likely that this would raise questions about the continued viability of the health insurance benefits industry. In their testimony to HESA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association did allude to an impact on the industry should prescription drugs become a public program but was not specific.34 We have been unable to locate any international comparative literature on the structure of the health benefits industry. In 2017 CLHIA’s members paid out $11.3 billion in drug benefits, representing 44% of the $25.5 billion total. Dental benefits accounted for $8.1 billion, or 32% of the total.35 Dental benefits paid by CLHIA members accounted for two-thirds (65%) of the estimated total expenditures on dental benefits in Canada in 2017; just 6% were publicly funded.13 Socio-economic inequalities in access to dental care are well-documented36, but this issue is nowhere on the public policy agenda. In addition, any transition from private to public coverage will require some administrative coordination. As noted above, Morgan et al. estimated that an essential medicines approach would reduce private spending by $4.2 billion, a large proportion of which would be currently paid for by private insurance.24 Which drugs should be covered/how much variability across jurisdictions should there be? In terms of which drugs should be covered, the CMA believes that optimal prescribing is the prescription of a drug that is:
The most clinically appropriate for the patient’s condition;
Safe and effective;
Part of a comprehensive treatment plan; and
The most cost-effective drug available to meet the patient’s needs.37 There is no dispute that private insurance companies offer wider formularies than the public drug programs. In their 2017 study the Conference Board compiled information on the number of drugs dispensed in 2015 through: both public and private plans, public plans only; and private plans only. This was presented for nine provinces, excluding PEI. Across the nine provinces, the following averages were observed:
4,878 drugs were dispensed from both public and private plans;
336 drugs were dispensed from public plans only;
1,938 drugs were dispensed from private plans only.9 On the 2018 CMA member e-panel survey, physicians were much more likely to report formulary coverage issues with their patients who with public coverage than they were for their patients with Private coverage. More than five in 10 (54%) physicians reported that they always/often have formulary coverage 7 issues with their publicly insured patients versus just over one in 10 (13%) for their privately insured patients. If the federal government plans to pursue national pharmacare Canadians should be well-informed about the range of prescription drugs that will be available to them. In terms of the variability of coverage, if pharmacare or some portion of it becomes a publicly insured service it should be offered to all Canadians under uniform terms and conditions, as specified in the CHA. In practical terms, Morgan and colleagues have previously demonstrated that there is a high degree of commonality in the formularies across the public drug programs. Based on a review of 2006 formulary listings of 796 drugs across all provincial formularies except PEI, they found that coverage ranged from 55% to 73%, but when weighted by national retail sales the measure of formulary coverage exceeded 86% in all 9 provinces.38 More recently, in the 2017 PMPRB study of formulary coverage Morgan studied 729 drugs across all provinces and the Non-Insured Health Benefits Plan for 2015. The public plans listed an average of 79% of the 729 drugs, and this increased to 95% when drug costs were factored in.25 These findings would lend further support to the case for an essential medicines approach to national pharmacare. Should patients pay a portion of the cost of drugs/should employers continue to play a role? If the federal government intends to define out-of-hospital prescription drugs as an insured service under the CHA it will be necessary to address the feasibility of first dollar coverage in light of the accessibility criterion that prohibits user charges. The CMA addressed this issue in our 2016 brief to the HESA pharmacare study with reference to Scotland, which eliminated prescription charges in April, 2011.39 There are now more recent data. In the four years leading up to the elimination of prescription charges the volume of prescriptions dispensed increased by 3.6% annually. In the seven years since the charges were eliminated, the annual increase has been 1.8%; indeed between 2016/17 and 2017/18 there was a decrease of 0.06%.40 It should be added however that dispensing charges only accounted for 3% of prescription costs in 2008/09. Wales and Northern Ireland have also eliminated prescription charges for their citizens. The experiences of these countries should be examined more closely. There has been very little research on how employers would react to the implementation of a full or partial public pharmacare plan. Ipsos conducted research among the employer community in 2012. Just under one in two (47) of respondents indicated that they would support a public program for supplementary benefits introduced by the federal government that was funded by increased taxes, but nearly nine in ten agreed that even if the government implemented a program I would recommend that our company/organization still offer a supplementary health benefits program (over and above the government offer) because it would give us an advantage in recruiting/retaining employees.41 If some form of a public pharmacare program is implemented, this will reduce the amount of drug benefits that private insurance companies are required to pay out, which should result in lower premiums for those employers who provide supplementary benefits. The implications of this in terms of how a pharmacare program might be funded have not received much scrutiny to date. However, regardless of the notionally ear-marked health taxes or premiums that are levied against businesses or individuals, Medicare has been paid for out of general tax revenues. Conclusion In conclusion, the initial modeling study published by Morgan et al. in 201542 has resulted in welcome attention to the longstanding issue of access to prescription drugs for Canadians who are either uninsured or under-insured. However the discussions have been light on how we could transition to a situation where Canadians can access prescription drugs on the same basis as they access medical and hospital services. This would require concerted discussion between the federal and PT governments and 8 the health insurance benefits industry and this has not yet occurred. The discussions since 2015 have mainly ignored the issue of highly expensive drugs for rare diseases and very expensive drugs for more common diseases, such as biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. The CMA is pleased to see that HESA is launching a study on the barriers to access to treatment and drugs for Canadians with rare diseases and disorders.43 Recommendations The Canadian Medical Association recommends that the Advisory Committee on the Implementation of National Pharmacare: 1.Engage with the federal and provincial/territorial governments and the health insuranceindustry on the feasibility of a universal federally funded “essential medicines”prescription drug plan as a scalable approach to the implementation of a nationalpharmacare plan. 2.Engage the business community and the health insurance industry on the question of thecontinued viability of the provision of supplementary health benefits (e.g. dental care)should a national pharmacare plan be implemented. 3.Study the international experience of Scotland and other countries with respect to theprovision of first dollar coverage of prescription drugs. 9 Table 1. The Evolution of Medicare ($ million) Year HIDS Medical Care Act Total program spend Medicare as a % of total program Total hospital spend Total physician spend Medicare as a % of total H&P 1958-59 54.7 0 4716 1% 640.608 301.337 6% 1959-60 150.6 0 4919.4 3% 735.626 325.689 14% 1960-61 189.4 0 5160.5 4% 834.932 355.014 16% 1961-62 283.9 0 5681.6 5% 930.568 388.305 22% 1962-63 336.7 0 5652.5 6% 1031.749 406.075 23% 1963-64 392.2 0 5878.7 7% 1150.306 453.395 24% 1964-65 433.9 0 6167 7% 1273.38 495.657 25% 1965-66 319.6 0 6623.9 5% 1434.274 545.056 16% 1966-67 397.4 0 7589.2 5% 1637.647 605.2 18% 1967-68 468.6 0 8497 6% 1880.699 686.189 18% 1968-69 561.9 33 9258 6% 2179.906 788.089 20% 1969-70 635.9 181 10204 8% 2456.687 901.435 24% 1970-71 734.3 400.5 11262 10% 2775.391 1031.555 30% 1971-72 844.6 576.5 12831 11% 3095.367 1239.775 33% 1972-73 960.5 630.8 16324 10% 3384.801 1375.127 33% 1973-74 1065.7 677.9 20247 9% 3803.61 1471.971 33% 1974-75 1307.6 762.7 26037 8% 4579.041 1647.025 33% 1975-76 1709.2 795.8 30023 8% 5533.707 1900.483 34% 1976-77 2030.5 1003.6 34209 9% 6357.3 2071 36% Sources: Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services (HIDs) and Medical Care Act – Public Accounts of Canada Issues 1958-59 – 1976-77. Spending by National Health and Welfare. Total program spend – Public Accounts of Canada Issues 1958-59-1976-77. Budgetary Expenditures Classified by Function – Total spend less public debt charges. Total hospital and physician spend – calendar year data 1958 – 1975 in Statistics Canada, Historical Statistics of Canada. Series B504-513 Health expenditures, Canada, 1926 to 1975. 1976 – Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Health Expenditures Data Tables Table A.3.1.1. 1 Government of Canada. Towards implementation of national pharmacare. Discussion paper. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/corporate/publications/council_on_pharmacare_EN.PDF. Accessed 10/02/18. 2 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Pharmacare now: prescription medicine coverage for all Canadians. http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HESA/Reports/RP9762464/hesarp14/hesarp14-e.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 3 Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Federal cost of a national pharmacare program. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/Pharmacare/Pharmacare_EN_2017_11_07.pdf. Accessed10/02/18. 10 4 Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The health of Canadians – the federal role. Volume six: recommendations for reform. https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/372/soci/rep/repoct02vol6-e.pdf. Accessed 10/-2/18.5 Conference Board of Canada. Federal policy action to support the health care needs of Canada’s aging population. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/conference-board-rep-sept-2015-embargo-en.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18.6 Berry C. Voluntary medical insurance and prepayment. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965.7 Clarkson G. The role of Trans-Canada Medical plans in Canadian medical insurance. News & Views on the Economics of Medicine 1966, Number 136.8 Canadian Medical Association. Submission of the Canadian Medical Association to the Royal Commission on Health Services. Toronto, 1962.9 Conference Board of Canada. Understanding the gap: a pan-Canadian analysis of prescription drug insurance coverage. https://www.conferenceboard.ca/temp/7bef4501-6ba6-4527-8b99-8b788c461d14/9326_Understanding-the-Gap__RPT.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18.10 Canadian Institute for Health Information. How Canada compares: Results from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2016 International Health Policy Survey of Adults in 11 Countries.https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/commonwealth-fund-2016-chartbook-en-web-rev.pptx. Accessed10/02/18.11 Abacus Data. Canadian perspectives on pharmacare. http://abacusdata.ca/canadian-perspectives-on-pharmacare/. Accessed 10/02/18.12 Royal Commission on Health Services. 1964—Report Volume 1. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1964.13 Canadian Institute for Health Information. National health expenditure trends 1975 to 2017: data tables.https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/series_b-nhex2017-en.xlsx. Accessed 10/02/18.14 Department of Finance Canada. Progress for the middle class. Fall economic statement 2017.https://www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2017/docs/statement-enonce/fes-eea-2017-eng.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18.15 Department of Finance Canada. Building a strong middle class. Budget plan 2017. https://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/docs/plan/budget-2017-en.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 16 Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Fiscal sustainability report 2018. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2018/FSR%20Sept%202018/FSR_2018_25SEP2018_EN_2.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 17 Canadian Medical Association. Funding the continuum of care. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/PD10-02-e.pdf. Accessed 1-/-2/18. 18 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal. http://www.scics.ca/wp-content/uploads/CMFiles/800039004_e1GTC-352011-6102.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 19 National Pharmaceuticals Strategy. National Pharmaceuticals Strategy progress report. June 2006. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/hcs-sss/alt_formats/hpb-dgps/pdf/pubs/2006-nps-snpp/2006-nps-snpp-eng.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 20 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. Annual conference of provincial-territorial Ministers of health. Backgrounder: National pharmaceutical strategy decision points. http://www.scics.ca/en/product-produit/backgrounder-national-pharmaceutical-strategy-decision-points/. Accessed 10/02/18. 21World Health Organization. Essential medicines and health products. http://www.who.int/medicines/services/essmedicines_def/en/. Accessed 10/02/18. 22World Health Organization. WHO model list of essential medicines. 20th list (Amended August 2017). http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/20th_EML2017.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 10/02/18. 23 Taglione M, Ahmad H, Slater M, Aliarzadeh B, Glazier R, Laupacis A, Persaud N. Development of a preliminary essential medicines list for Canada. CMAJ Open 2017, 5(1):E137-43. 24 Morgan S, Li W, Yau B, Persaud N. Estimated effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada. CMAJ 2017;189(8):E295-302. 25 Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Alignment among public formularies in Canada. Part 1: General overview. http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles/NPDUIS/NPDUIS_formulary_report_part_1_en.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 26 Institute for Fiscal Studies and Democracy. National pharmacare in Canada: Choosing a path forward. http://www.ifsd.ca/web/default/files/Presentations/Reports/18006%20-%20National%20Pharmacare%20in%20Canada-%20Choosing%20a%20Path%20Forward%20-%2016%20July%202018%20-%20Final.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 27 CTV News. Ottawa dad raising red flag about OHIP+. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-dad-raising-red-flag-about-ohip-1.3759115. Accessed 10/02/18. 28 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Financial statements March 31, 2018. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/corporate/planning_documents/CADTH-FS-FY17-18-e.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 29 Sher G. Canadian Blood Services as a model for national pharmacare. National Post, April 15, 2015. https://blood.ca/en/media/graham-sher-canadian-blood-services-as-a-model-for-national-pharmacare. Accessed 10/02/18. 11 30 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Monday, May 2, 2016. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HESA/Evidence/EV8226056/HESAEV09-E.PDF. Accessed 10/02/18. 31 Flood C, Thomas B, Moten A, Fafard P. Universal pharmacare and federalism: policy options for Canada. http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Universal-Pharmacare-and-Federalism-Policy-Options-for-Canada.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 32 Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Centre. Conference of provincial and territorial Ministers of health. Provincial/territorial health Ministers meeting communiqué. June 28, 2018. http://www.scics.ca/en/product-produit/news-release-provincial-territorial-health-ministers-meeting-communique/. Accessed 10/02/18. 33 Statistics Canada. Historical Statistics of Canada. Series 8514-516. Estimated enrolment in non-profit medical insurance plans, Canada, at 31 December, 1937 to 1975. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-516-x/pdf/5500093-eng.pdf?st=W5ksoTqs. Accessed 10/02/18. 34 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Evidence. Monday, May 9, 2016. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HESA/Evidence/EV8251913/HESAEV10-E.PDF. Accessed 10/02/18. 35 Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Canadian life and health insurance facts 2018 edition. https://www.clhia.ca/web/clhia_lp4w_lnd_webstation.nsf/resources/Factbook_2/$file/2018+FB+EN.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 36 Farmer J, Phillips R, Singhal S, Quinonez C. Inequalities in oral health: understanding the contributions of education and income. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2017;108(3):3240-5. 37 Canadian Medical Association. A prescription for optimal prescribing. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD11-01.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 38 Morgan S, Hanley G, Raymond C, Blais R. Breadth, depth and agreement among provincial formularies in Canada. Healthcare Policy 2009;4(4):e162-84. 39 Canadian Medical Association. National pharmacare in Canada: getting there from here. https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/national-pharmacare-canada-e.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 40 ISD Scotland. Data Tables Prescribing and Medicines. Volume and cost (NHSScotland) (Financial years 2008-09-2017/18). http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Prescribing-and-Medicines/Publications/data-tables2017.asp?id=2204#2204. Accessed 10/02/18. 41 Ipsos Reid. Two in ten (18%) Canadians have no supplementary health coverage. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/2012-08/5714.pdf. Accessed 10/02/18. 42 Morgan S, Law M, Daw J, Abraham L, Martin D. Estimated cost of universal public coverage of prescription drugs in Canada. CMAJ 2015;187(7):491-7. 43 House of Commons Standing Committee on Health Minutes of Proceedings, Meeting No. 100 April 18, 2018. http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-100/minutes. Accessed 10/02/18.
Documents
Less detail

Legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11954
Date
2016-08-29
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  2 documents  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2016-08-29
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to make this submission in response to the consultation led by the federal Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, which has the objective of providing advice to the government on the design of a new framework for marijuana for non-medical, or recreational, purposes. On behalf of its more than 83,000 members and the Canadian public, the CMA performs a wide variety of functions. Key functions include advocating for health promotion and disease/injury prevention policies and strategies, advocating for access to quality health care, facilitating change within the medical profession, and providing leadership and guidance to physicians to help them influence, manage and adapt to changes in health care delivery. The CMA has over 83,000 physician-members. Its mission is helping physicians care for patients and its vision is to be the leader in engaging and serving physicians, and the national voice for the highest standards for health and health care. The CMA is a voluntary professional organization representing the majority of Canada’s physicians and comprising 12 provincial and territorial divisions and over 60 national medical organizations. The Government of Canada has made a commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to marijuana in response to the high rates of marijuana use among Canadians, particularly youtha 1 2, despite its current illegal status. The existing approach to drugs has resulted in high rates of criminal records for non-violent drug offences each yearb 3, affecting disadvantaged groups disproportionately. Organized crime is supported by these high levels of use. This situation has resulted in considerable harm to society. a Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal substance in Canada. 43% of Canadians claim to have used marijuana at some point in their life, despite almost a century of prohibition. Canadian youth has the highest rate of marijuana use among 29 developed countries. Almost a quarter of the population aged 15 to 24 years reported past-year use. b According to a Stats Canada report, there were 73 thousand marijuana-related criminal offences (67% of all police-reported drug offences) in 2013. 1 Rotermann M, Langlois, K. Prevalence and correlates of marijuana use in Canada, 2012. Health Reports. 2015 Apr;26(4):10-5. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2015004/article/14158-eng.pdf (accessed August 12, 2016). 2 UNICEF Office of Research. Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research; 2013. Available: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf (accessed August 12, 2016). 3 Cotter A, Greenland J, Karam M. Drug-Related Offences in Canada, 2013. Juristat. 2015 Jun 25;1-38. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14201-eng.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 11). 4 Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation. Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Ministry of Health. Toward the legalization, regulation and restriction of access to marijuana. Discussion paper. Ottawa: Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Secretariat; 2016. Available: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/alt/legalization-marijuana-legalisation-eng.pdf (accessed July 25, 2016). 5 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). Health risks and harms associated with the use of marijuana. CMA Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2014. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Brief-Marijuana-Health_Committee_May27-2014-FINAL.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 12). Public opinion in Canada and internationally has risen steadily in support of the removal of criminal sanctions for simple marijuana possession, as well as for the legalization and regulation of marijuana. The federal Task Force has developed a discussion paper, Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana4, which includes the following objectives for the new regime for legal access to marijuana:
Protect young Canadians by keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and youth;
Keep profits out of the hands of criminals, particularly organized crime;
Reduce the burdens on police and the justice system associated with simple possession of marijuana offences;
Prevent Canadians from entering the criminal justice system and receiving criminal records for simple marijuana possession offences;
Protect public health and safety by strengthening, where appropriate, laws and enforcement measures that deter and punish more serious marijuana offences, particularly selling and distributing to children and youth, selling outside of the regulatory framework, and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana;
Ensure Canadians are well-informed through sustained and appropriate public health campaigns, and, for youth in particular, ensure that risks are understood;
Establish and enforce a system of strict production, distribution and sales, taking a public health approach, with regulation of quality and safety (e.g., child-proof packaging, warning labels), restriction of access, and application of taxes, with programmatic support for addiction treatment, mental health support and education programs;
Continue to provide access to quality-controlled marijuana for medical purposes consistent with federal policy and Court decisions; and
Conduct ongoing data collection, including gathering baseline data, to monitor the impact of the new framework. Context The CMA has longstanding concerns about the health risks associated with consuming marijuana, particularly in its smoked form.5 6 Children and youth are especially at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development. 6 Canadian Medical Association (CMA). A public health perspective on cannabis and other illegal drugs. CMA Submission to the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association; 2002. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/BriefPDF/BR2002-08.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 7 Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SR. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 5;370(23):2219–2227. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/pdf/nihms762992.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 8 Wilkinson ST, Yarnell S, Radhakrishnan R, Ball SA, D'Souza DC. Marijuana Legalization: Impact on Physicians and Public Health. Annu Rev Med. 2016 Jan 14;67:453-466. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-050214-013454. (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 9 World Health Organization (WHO). Management of substance abuse: Cannabis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/ (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 10 Hall W, Degenhardt L. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. The Lancet, 2009 Oct 23;374(9698):1383-91. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61037-0. (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 11 Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health, 2012. The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2013 Sep 18. Component of Statistics Canada catalogue no. 11-001-X. p. 1-2. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130918/dq130918a-eng.htm (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 12 Shenfeld A. Growing Their Own Revenue: The Fiscal Impacts of Cannabis Legalization. Economic Insights. Toronto: CIBC World Markets Inc.; 2016 Jan 28. p. 7-8. Available: http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/eijan16.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 11). 13 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). Cannabis Regulation: Lessons Learned In Colorado and Washington State. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2015. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 14 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). Marijuana for Non-Therapeutic Purposes: Policy Considerations. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2014. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Non-Therapeutic-Marijuana-Policy-Brief-2014-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 15 Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee. Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2014. Denver (CO): Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; 2015. Available: http://www2.cde.state.co.us/artemis/hemonos/he1282m332015internet/he1282m332015internet01.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 16 Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy. Pathways Report: Policy Options for Regulating Marijuana in California. Denver (CO): Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy; 2015. Available: https://www.safeandsmartpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BRCPathwaysReport.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 17 Walsh J, Ramsey G. Uruguay’s Drug Policy: Major Innovations, Major Challenges. Washington (DC): Brookings Institution, Washington Office on Latin America; 2015. Available: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Walsh-Uruguay-final.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 18 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Cannabis Policy Framework. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2014. Available: http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/documents/camhcannabispolicyframework.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 10). Our understanding of the health effects of marijuana continues to evolve. c 7 8 9 Marijuana use is linked to several adverse health outcomes, including addiction, cardiovascular and pulmonary effects (e.g., chronic bronchitis), mental illness, and other problems, including cognitive impairment and reduced educational attainment. There seems to be an increased risk of chronic psychosis disorders, including schizophrenia, in persons with a predisposition to such disorders. The use of high potency products, higher frequency of use and early initiation are predictors of worse health outcomes. c Unlike pharmaceuticals, marijuana is a complex combination of more than 100 different chemicals. The main psychoactive component is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), but other components, such as cannabidiol (CBD), also act on the central nervous system and may modify the effects of THC. The concentration of these compounds can vary substantially, making it difficult to characterize the specific positive or negative health effects of marijuana, especially in uncontrolled and epidemiological studies. As well, the average content of THC in marijuana has increased substantially in the last 30 years. For these and other reasons, research and attribution of harm and benefit are challenging. d Similar estimates for other substances are 15% for alcohol, 23% for heroin and 32% for nicotine. e Abuse is characterized by a pattern of recurrent use where at least one of the following occurs: failure to fulfill major roles at work, school or home, use in physically hazardous situations, recurrent alcohol or drug related problems, and continued use despite social or interpersonal problems caused or intensified by alcohol or drugs. f Dependence is when at least three of the following occur in the same 12 month period: increased tolerance, withdrawal, increased consumption, unsuccessful efforts to quit, a lot of time lost recovering or using, reduced activity, and continued use despite persistent physical or psychological problems caused or intensified by alcohol or drugs. The lifetime risk of dependence to marijuana is estimated at about 9%d, increasing to almost 17% in those who initiate use in adolescence.10 In 2012, about 1.3% of people aged 15 and over met the criteria for marijuana abusee or dependencef – double that of any other drugs – due to the high prevalence of marijuana use. 11 Another area of great concern is that of impairment and the operation of vehicles, as well as the performing of work in an unsafe manner. There is an increased risk of motor vehicle collisions up to 6 hours after use, depending on method of use, dose and tolerance. As well, experience in the U.S. and even in Canada has shown that there can be an increased risk of unintentional overdoses in children due to marijuana edibles. The CMA’s overarching recommendation to the federal government is that the government must take a broad public health policy approach to address the legalization and regulation of marijuana for non-medical use. A public health approach would place an increased focus on: preventing drug abuse and dependence; the availability of assessment, counselling and treatment services for those who wish to stop using; and harm reduction to increase the safety for those who are using. This approach seeks to ensure that the harms associated with enforcement are not out of proportion to the direct harms caused by substance abuse. Individuals with drug dependency should be diverted, whenever possible, from the criminal justice system to treatment and rehabilitation. Monitoring, surveillance and research of marijuana use are essential to better understand the short and long term harms as well as to develop policy options to address prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. There are huge economic pressures at play that need to be considered in a new regime and it is essential that public health objectives be central to the process of legalization and regulation. A recent report12 estimates that it could create a $10 billion a year industry in Canada, including production and distribution. As well, legalizing marijuana will bring in considerable tax revenue, and governments could collect as much as 50% or more of that if the rate of taxation is high, as in the ‘sin’ tax on the sale of alcohol and tobacco. As well, legalization could also lead to substantial savings in enforcement and incarceration. Given these pressures by private corporations, governments and other lobby groups, it is essential that the federal and provincial/territorial governments be held accountable to public health objectives of decreasing harms of marijuana use, particularly in children and youth. The CMA’s submission does not address the question of whether marijuana should be legal; the current federal government has already made it clear that this is their intent. Instead, this submission focuses on specific recommendations from physicians as they apply to the regulatory framework, with the objective of protecting individual and public health. It is based on input from CMA’s members, discussions with key stakeholders and experts from specialty societies, a review of reports on the experience in jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana for non-medical use, such as Colorado, Washington and Uruguay13 14 15 16 17, as well as expert literature18 19. 19 George T, Vaccarino F. (eds.). Substance abuse in Canada: The effects of cannabis use during adolescence. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2015. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Effects-of-Cannabis-Use-during-Adolescence-Report-2015-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (accessed 2016 Aug 10). 21 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA). Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado. The Impact. 2014 Aug;2:1-166. Available: http://www.rmhidta.org/html/august%202014%20legalization%20of%20mj%20in%20colorado%20the%20impact.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 22 Monte AA, Zane RD, Heard KJ. The implications of marijuana legalization in Colorado. JAMA. 2015;313(3):241-42. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404298/pdf/nihms679104.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 23 Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee. Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2014. Denver (CO): Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; 2015. Available: http://www2.cde.state.co.us/artemis/hemonos/he1282m332015internet/he1282m332015internet01.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 24 Cunningham JA, Blomqvist J, Koski-Jannes A, Raitasalo K. Societal Images of Cannabis use: Comparing Three Countries. Harm Reduct J. 2012 Jun 18;9:21. Available: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-9 -21.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 25 Porath-Waller A, Brown J, Frigon A, Clark H. What Canadian youth think about cannabis: Technical report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2013. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-What-Canadian-Youth-Think-about-Cannabis-2013-en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 26 Health Canada. Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A national survey of Canadians' use of alcohol and other drugs: Public opinion, attitudes and knowledge. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2006. Available: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/349980/publication.html (accessed 2016 Aug 15). 27 Fischer B, Jeffries V, Hall W, Room R, Goldner E, Rehm J. Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canada (LRCUG): A Narrative Review of Evidence and Recommendations. Can J Public Health. 2011 Sep-Oct;102(5):324-27. Available: http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/view/2758 (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 28 Health Canada. Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS). Ottawa: Health Canada; 2013. Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2012/summary-sommaire-eng.php (accessed 2016 Aug 12). 29 Young MM, Student Drug Use Surveys Working Group (SDUS). Cross-Canada report on student alcohol and drug use: Technical report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2011. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/2011_CCSA_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). 30 Young, M.M. et al. (2011) Cross-Canada report on student alcohol and drug use: Technical report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Available: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/2011_CCSA_Student_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_en.pdf (accessed 2016 Aug 16). The Task Force’s discussion paper presents the potential elements of a new system, which were grouped into five themes: 1) minimizing harms of use; 2) establishing a safe and responsible production system; 3) designing an appropriate distribution system; 4) enforcing public safety and protection; and 5) accessing marijuana for medical purposes. Each theme includes questions on specific concerns for which the Task Force is seeking input. Presented below are the CMA’s recommendations to the federal government for each section of the discussion paper. A summary of all recommendations is listed at the end of the brief. RECOMMENDATION: The CMA recommends that the federal government take a broad public health policy approach in legalizing marijuana for non-medical purposes, and that it be held accountable to these public health objectives. 1. MINIMIZING HARMS OF USE 1.1. Do you believe that these measures are appropriate to achieve the overarching objectives to minimize harms, and in particular to protect children and youth? Are there other actions which the government should consider enacting alongside these measures? Legalization and strict regulation of marijuana for recreational use seeks to reduce health and social harms, particularly in higher risk groups; however, with the increased access, there could be an inverse effect, with the potential that harms could be intensified. There is also the considerable risk that the degree of “normalization” of use that already exists could increase. Colorado has seen an increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths and an increase in the use of health care due to intoxication, burns and cyclic vomiting syndrome, as well as overdoses in children due to marijuana in edibles.20 21 22 Many of the regulatory interventions used in reducing tobacco normalization and rates, as well as controlling the harms of alcohol at a population level, are proposed in the Task Force’s discussion paper as part of a framework for marijuana legalization and regulation. These include: 1) Minimum age for legal purchase with the objective of protecting children and youth, particularly since the risks of marijuana use are higher in ages where the brain is still in development. 2) Advertising and marketing restrictions to minimize the profile and attractiveness of products, seeking to prevent or at least reduce the “normalization” of use in society, particularly among children and youth. 3) Taxation and pricing to discourage use and provide the government with revenues to offset related costs (such as substance abuse services, law enforcement and regulatory oversight). 4) Restrictions on marijuana products, particularly with regards to the THC component, given higher concentration products have added risks and unknown long term impacts, with most impact on children and youth. Restrictions would include maximum THC limits and prohibition of high-potency products. 5) Restrictions on types of marijuana products, particularly edibles, to prevent accidental or unintentional ingestion, particularly by children. Limits would be placed on dosing and potency. 6) Limitations on quantities for personal possession, with the objective of helping to reduce demand and to minimize opportunities for resale of legally purchased marijuana on the illicit market (particularly to children and youth). 7) Limitation on where marijuana can be sold in order to minimize harms. Despite the merit of each of the proposed measures, collectively these may not adequately protect children and youth. A pathway to better implementation would require: . Taking the time to adequately prepare for the implementation, including developing the capacity to meet demand, administer the system, enforce regulations and deal with adverse effects. A phased-in approach or pilots in certain jurisdictions should be considered before going nationwide. . Learning from the lessons gained in jurisdictions that have made changes in drug policy, including the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington, Uruguay, the Netherlands and Portugal. . Learning from successes and failures in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol, with respect to the objectives of reducing or eliminating use for all Canadians (tobacco) and promoting responsible use among adults, while prohibiting use in youth (alcohol). . Developing the capacity to carry out a rigorous national-level evaluation of the impact of legalization of marijuana on the health and safety of Canadians. Data collection and analysis cannot be conducted if national surveillance systems do not exist. Important data to be monitored include marijuana-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations, rates of drug-impaired driving, recreational injuries, unintentional poisonings, product contamination, overconsumption and food-borne illness from edible products.23 . Support for a research agenda to better understand harms of marijuana, particularly among vulnerable groups such as children and youth, pregnant women, people with mental illness and chronic diseases. Research should also support policy interventions, including those to address second hand smoke, harm reduction measures, treatments and effective education strategies. The CMA is supportive of the regulatory interventions proposed by the government to reduce the harms, regarding: Marketing and advertising: The CMA recommends that the marketing and advertising of marijuana be prohibited, as is currently the case for tobacco and cigarettes. Measures such as plain packaging, prohibition of appealing flavours and shapes, adequate content and potency labelling, as well as health warnings, should be incorporated to discourage experimentation. A package insert should outline health risks and supporting references, the need for securing the product in the home, preventing access by youth and children, and recommendations not to drive or work with hazardous chemicals or equipment. The insert should include information detailing the health and social consequences, including legal penalties for providing marijuana to those under a designated minimum age for purchasing. Taxation and pricing: Taxation and pricing levers should be used to discourage use, with revenues clearly earmarked for covering the health and social costs of legalization. In Colorado, for example, revenue is used in substance abuse programs, regulation of marijuana and for public school construction. However, as with tobacco, final pricing must be such as to discourage the illegal production and trafficking of marijuana. Most of future tax revenues should be redistributed to the provinces and territories. This is because they will feel the impact of legalization directly as they have jurisdiction over health care, education, social and other services, as well as responsibility for enforcement. Restrictions on the potency of marijuana products: Experience in jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized has shown that restrictions on the potency of products (i.e., THC limits) are necessary, given the higher risks of harm associated with higher potencies. Prohibition of high potency products is important. However, there is a risk that the prohibition could lead to an illicit market of more potent marijuana preparations. Restrictions on types of marijuana products: It is essential that restrictions be placed on the dosing of products, particularly of edibles, given the incidence of accidental overdoses of children. Content in a package should not be sufficient to cause an overdose. Because of these incidents, child proof packaging should also be required. Limitations on quantities for personal possession: Placing maximum limits on quantities that can be purchased would help to reduce the opportunities for illegal distribution and sale, especially to those below the established minimum age limit. The proposed measures related to minimum age for legal purchase and limitation on where marijuana can be sold are discussed in Sections 1.2 and 3, respectively, below. In addition to the regulatory interventions proposed in the “Minimizing Harms of Use” section of the discussion paper, others are equally fundamental, including: A clear process for identifying, testing and charging individuals who are driving under the influence of marijuana should be in place prior to legalization (see further discussion under Section 4). Public education: The use of public education tools to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana use is necessary. Awareness of Canadians of the harms of marijuana is generally low.24 25 26 Youth tend to emphasize the drug’s ability to help them focus, relax, sleep, reduce violent behaviour and improve creativity. There are also many dangerous myths, such as that marijuana can counter the harmful effects of smoking tobacco by preventing cancer or that marijuana makes people better drivers. There is also a perception amongst some that marijuana is not an addictive substance because it is “natural”. However, traditional public campaigns and educational programs for youth have been shown to be minimally effective. There is a need for more effective programs, including those that incorporate skills-based training that teaches youth how to handle situations that involve drugs and/or alcohol. Harm reduction measures, such as those outlined in the Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canadag 27 should be discussed, particularly with teens, in an effort to minimize harm, even if they choose to continue to use. g These include delaying use until early adulthood; avoiding frequent use; preferring smokeless delivery systems; using less potent products; not driving after use; and abstaining from use when at higher risk of cannabis-related problems (people with a personal or family history of psychosis, cardiovascular problems and pregnant women). It is important that these education programs be designed by governments and health professionals, and not marijuana producers or distributers. However, costs of such programs could come from the profits of such industries. Expanded access and immediate availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services is another very important measure to minimize harm. These services are currently difficult to access in the community and have long wait times; in many parts of Canada they are simply unavailable. A plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine and access to treatment should be in place prior to legalization. Enforcement of regulations: Licensed producers and retail outlets should be held accountable in their compliance with policies, guidance and good practices to prevent contaminants that may cause additional health issues if consumed, particularly by minors (See also Section 3). 1.2. What are your views on the minimum age for purchasing and possessing marijuana? Should the minimum age be consistent across Canada, or is it acceptable that there be variation amongst provinces and territories? In order to achieve the first objective of legalization, i.e., to protect young Canadians by keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and youth, a minimum age for its purchase and possession must be adopted. This has been an important measure in tobacco and alcohol regulations. Existing evidence on marijuana points to the importance of protecting the brain during its development. Since that development is only finalized by about 25 years of age, this would be an ideal minimum age based on currently accepted scientific evidence, although knowledge on brain development is still evolving. However, marijuana use among youth (ages 15 to 24) is still double that of the general population, at 20%, even though there has been a slight decrease in use in recent years.28 A 2011 report on student alcohol and drug use in Canada showed that of those youth who had used marijuana in the past 3 months, 25% had used it daily. The average age of initiation was 16.1 years. In some provinces, about 50% of students in grade 12 have reported using marijuana in the past year.29 A minimum age lower than 25 years should be considered in order to deter youth from seeking marijuana from organized crime groups, where they are exposed to other more dangerous drugs, sometimes even laced into marijuana. In jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalized, the minimum age has been set at the same minimum age for purchase of alcohol, i.e., 21 years. In Canada, the age limits for acquiring alcohol and tobacco are either 18 or 19 years of age, depending on the province or territory. In a survey carried out with a sample of the CMA membership, 25.4% recommended age 21, 20.3% age 25, 19.7% age 18, and 14.2% age 19. The CMA recommends that the minimum age should be set at 21, and that quantities and the potency of marijuana be more restricted to those under age 25 to discourage use and sharing with underage friends. The CMA recommends that the minimum age be established at the national level, and federally regulated, to avoid differences at the provincial/territorial level. This would reduce problems with enforcement in areas near provincial/territorial borders. SECTION 1 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the federal government incorporate the following measures to support improved implementation of the legalization of marijuana: a) Ensure sufficient time to adequately prepare for the implementation of the legalized regime, including a phased-in approach and piloting legalization in smaller regions prior to national roll-out; b) Assess international experience with legalization and incorporate lessons-learned from other jurisdictions into Canada’s approach; c) Assess the domestic experience in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol against meeting the national objectives for each substance and incorporate lessons-learned from those experiences; and, d) Develop capacity for national surveillance to ensure rigorous national-level monitoring and evaluation. e) Support for a research agenda. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit the marketing and advertising of marijuana and that packaging requirements include plain packaging, potency labelling and health warnings. The CMA further recommends that the federal government prohibit flavouring and shapes. The CMA recommends that the federal government employ taxation and pricing levers to discourage consumption and that the revenues of this taxation be allocated to the provinces and territories and clearly allocated for health and social services. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish potency restrictions to reduce the harms associated with higher potencies. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish dosing restrictions on marijuana products, notably edibles. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish maximum limits on quantities of marijuana that can be purchased. The CMA recommends that the federal government employ effective public education tools, including skills-based training, to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana usage. The CMA recommends that the federal government expand access and availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services simultaneously to the legalization of marijuana. As part of this initiative, the CMA recommends that the federal government implement a plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine. The CMA recommends that the federal government set the minimum age of purchase and consumption at 21 and that quantities and potency be restricted for those under the age of 25. The CMA recommends that the federal government establish the minimum age at the national level to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions. 2. ESTABLISHING A SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM 2.1. What are your views on the most appropriate production model? Which production model would best meet consumer demand while ensuring that public health and safety objectives are achievable? What level and type of regulation is needed for producers? There will be no perfect production model, with each one having its risks and benefits. The CMA would support a tightly regulated competitive model. A set number of licenses should be granted to producers, who are part of a competitive system, and there should be a reasonable cost associated to offset regulatory expenses. Producers would have to comply with policies and guidelines set by Health Canada, and be subject to inspections. It is fundamental that commercialization is rigorously controlled through taxation, regulation, monitoring and advertising controls. 2.2. To what extent, if any, should home cultivation be allowed in a legalized system? What, if any, government oversight should be put in place? The CMA does not recommend home cultivation in a legalized system for non-medical purposes, as it presents many challenges to municipal, enforcement and public health authorities, particularly given the potentially high number of homes that could seek to cultivate marijuana. There are many health and safety hazards in cultivation, such as high humidity and temperatures, risk of fire, as well as the use of hazardous chemicals, including pesticides used for the control of fungi, bacteria and insects. There is little quality control regarding contamination and potency of the product. As well, home cultivation has an enhanced risk of abuse, if individuals use the production for sale rather than exclusively for personal use. Access to marijuana by children and youth is also a serious concern with home cultivation. In the present marijuana for medical purposes system, where some users have been allowed to continue to grow for personal use, there is great difficulty in monitoring and inspecting these properties. However, this has been allowed given the Allard v Canada court decision, to not hinder access for medical purposes. Washington has not permitted home cultivation, but Colorado has allowed the growth of a small number of plants for personal use (up to 6 plants, with a maximum 3 mature ones, in an enclosed, locked space). 2.3. Should a system of licensing or other fees be introduced? Should limited home cultivation for non-medical purposes be an option, a system of registration and licensing would have to be set up to allow for tracking and inspections of home production. It would also allow penalties for non-registered producers as well as larger scale operations. This would be a system that would require intense government regulation, oversight and tremendous resources to be effective. 2.4. The MMPR set out rigorous requirements over the production, packaging, storage and distribution of marijuana. Are these types of requirements appropriate for the new system? Are there features that you would add or remove? The requirements for production, packaging, storage and distribution of marijuana set out by the MMPR are appropriate for the new system. However, a rigorous review of the MMPR should be conducted to determine if there are weaknesses that need to be corrected before expanding to a non-medical market. Ongoing evaluation will be warranted as well. Distribution would have to expand beyond the mail service. 2.5. What role, if any, should existing licensed producers under the MMPR have in the new system (either in the interim or the long-term)? The CMA’s policy position does not extend to whether the existing licensed producers should be suppliers to the recreational market. The experience in Colorado, however, showed that having the industry set up for medical purposes first allowed a smoother transition, in contrast with Washington, which did not have an industry. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA supports a tightly regulated competitive model wherein production and distribution is heavily regulated and includes strict oversight. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit home cultivation in the legalized system for non-medical use. The CMA recommends that the federal government evaluate the requirements established by the MMPR system for production, packaging, storage and distribution to introduce improvements for implementation in the new legalized system for non-medical use. 3. DESIGNING AN APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 3.1. Which distribution model makes the most sense and why? There is the need to continue mail availability for patients accessing marijuana for medical purposes to ensure nationwide access, however, a distribution system based exclusively on mail service would probably not meet the objectives of a recreational system. When a sample of our membership was asked about distribution models, first preference was given to existing non-health care structures, such as liquor stores. In some provinces, they would have the additional benefit of having a tightly regulated government monopoly by control board entities with a social responsibility mandate. Restrictions could be placed to limit the acquisition of both alcohol and marijuana. As stated earlier, marketing should be prohibited. Staff in these stores receives training and hours can be limited. A close second preference was given to legal storefronts, similar to the independent dispensaries. Several municipalities have been in varied degrees of discussion on the regulation of the presently illegal dispensaries, and those regulations could be looked at as models in a legalized environment. When asked about health care settings, such as pharmacies, respondents to the survey did not support this model. Almost 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed. A reason for this lack of support could be that placing marijuana in pharmacies could lend it credibility as a pharmaceutical medication, whereas placing it in liquor stores would send the message that it needs strict and formal controls. As per previous discussion, the creation of private industries for production and distribution would have to be very tightly controlled to avoid commercialization. As we have learned from the alcohol and tobacco industries, private companies have an interest in recruiting customers and encouraging high levels of ongoing consumption. It is important that the regulatory framework be protected from these commercial and fiscal interests. Regardless of the actual point of sale, storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. There is good evidence from the regulation of alcohol that the less restrictive retail outlet density is, the more harms associated with alcohol use occur. Restrictions would also be placed on distances from schools, parks, playgrounds, colleges and universities, as well as on hours of sale. Regulations would lay out standards, including for the control of product sources, proof of minimum age required for purchase and restrictions on quantities sold. 3.2. To what extent is variation across provinces and territories in terms of distribution models acceptable? In the CMA’s survey of our members, there was not a consensus among respondents as to whether provincial and territorial governments should decide on their own distribution mechanisms. Many comments stated that a federal standard is warranted due to the need for initial close oversight and the ability to make effective changes more quickly. The CMA position is that there is an important role for the federal government to play in ensuring consistency across the country and avoiding provincial/territorial variation. 3.3. Are there other models worthy of consideration? The CMA recommends a phased in approach to the roll out of the system of distribution. Several pilot locations could be considered before going nationwide. Given the novelty and impact of this new legislation, particular caution is absolutely necessary from a regulatory and public health perspective. SECTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the distribution model should occur outside health care structures, for example, in liquor stores, and that storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. The CMA recommends that the distribution model should be established at the federal level and be consistent across jurisdictions. The CMA recommends a phased implementation approach prior to national availability. 4. ENFORCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION 4.1. How should governments approach designing laws that will reduce, eliminate and punish those who operate outside the boundaries of the new legal system for marijuana? The severity of punishment for simple possession and personal use of marijuana should be eliminated with the removal of criminal sanctions. The CMA recommends that resources currently devoted to combating simple marijuana possession through the criminal law be diverted to public health and education strategies, particularly for youth. Having a criminal record limits employment prospects, and the impact on health status is profound, disproportionately among marginalized populations. Laws should include such things as the facilitation of access by individuals to services to address substance use, mental health and social stabilization. Laws should be drafted in a clear fashion to minimize ambiguity and provide as much guidance and direction to users, health care providers, enforcement authorities, producers, distributors and others. 4.2. What specific tools, training and guidelines will be most effective in supporting enforcement measures to protect public health and safety, particularly for impaired driving? The use of marijuana is associated with an increased risk of impairment, and is incompatible with the operation of vehicles and work in safety sensitive positions due to risk of injury to oneself, coworkers or the general public. Marijuana use is associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. Young people, particularly males, are more likely to drive after using marijuana. The Cross-Canada Report on Student Alcohol and Drug Use30 states that 14–21% of students in Grade 12 reported having driven within an hour of using marijuana, and more than 33% of Grade 12 students reported having been a passenger in a car where the driver had used the drug. Often, marijuana is associated with alcohol use, having an additive effect. A clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who use marijuana and drive absolutely needs to be in place nationally prior to legalization. This will be complicated by the fact that a roadside test for marijuana use is not in widespread use; blood and urine testing also pose challenges. Another issue is the fact that recent use does not necessarily equate to impairment and no scientific standard for impairment exists in the literature. All individuals charged with impaired driving should have a specialist assessment to determine whether a substance use disorder is present. Individuals with substance use disorders should have immediate access to addiction treatment, mental health services and social stabilization. There is also a need for the development of guidelines for employers for the assessment and management of risk. 4.3. Should consumption of marijuana be allowed in any publicly-accessible spaces outside the home? Under what conditions and circumstances? No public smoking should be permitted, due to the risk of second hand smoke. Second hand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins, including carcinogens, found in directly inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts, if not more. There is special concern for harmful health effects, especially among children. The CMA does not recommend the exposure of children to second hand smoke in public areas or in the home. The success in the reduction of tobacco use rates is significantly related to banning of smoking in public places. In the CMA’s survey of a sample of its members, 51.7% disagreed with consumption in designated public places, such as the Dutch model of coffee shops. SECTION 4 RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMA recommends that the federal government reallocate resources currently dedicated to the enforcement of marijuana infractions, to public health, education and treatment programs. The CMA recommends that the federal government ensure that a clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana be in place nationally prior to the legalization of marijuana. The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit smoking of marijuana for non-medical purposes in public places. 5. ACCESSING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES 5.1. What factors should the government consider in determining if appropriate access to medically authorized persons is provided once a system for legal access to marijuana is in place? The CMA recognizes that some individuals suffering from terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective may obtain relief with marijuana used for medical purposes. However, clinical evidence of medical benefits is limited and there is very limited guidance for the therapeutic use, including indications, potency (levels of THC, CBD), interactions with medications and adverse effects. Health Canada does not approve of marijuana as a medicine, as it has not gone through the approvals required by the regulatory process to be a pharmaceutical. The present system poses a serious challenge for physicians in providing the best care to patients. The CMA has long called for more research to better understand potential therapeutic indications, as well as its risks. It is important that there be support for research of marijuana in order to develop products that can be held to pharmaceutical standards, as is the case with dronabinol (Marinol®), nabilone (Cesamet®) and THC/CBD (Sativex®). The present marijuana for medical purposes regime operates as an exception to a criminal prohibition for production, possession and trafficking of marijuana. It was developed in reaction to court challenges regarding the right to legal access of individuals to marijuana for medical purposes. With the new legal system for marijuana for non-medical use, the requirement to maintain a separate regulatory framework would not be necessary, given court-mandated access will be provided. As well, the experience of legalization for non-medical use in Colorado and Washington has shown that two separate regimes with distinct regulations can be very difficult to enforce given the dual standards (including different minimum ages, purchase quantities and taxation). Provisions would have to exist within the new system to attend to legitimate medical needs of individuals who are under the minimum age for purchase of marijuana, or for those with a requirement for a more potent product than that which is legally available. Consideration might also be given to affordable access for those with low incomes. As stated previously, the option of distribution through mail would have to continue, to facilitate access in remote areas. As well, patients or their families would be able to access marijuana through the distributors of marijuana for non-medical purposes, such as storefronts or liquor store-like entities, which would have employees trained to support patients and their needs. The use of marijuana products for medical indications, through this system, should preferably be done under research protocols. This framework would contribute to the provision of more robust scientific data. SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATION: The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for marijuana, following legalization of non-medical marijuana, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire marijuana in a legal manner, e.g., those below the minimum age or those with a requirement for a more potent product than legally available. 6. Summary of Recommendations The CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on this important matter to physicians and the public. Legalization of marijuana for non-medical purposes is a fundamental shift in the approach to drugs. The CMA’s position is that it is essential that the government consult with experts, key stakeholders and the general public not only at this phase in preparation for legislation on this matter, but throughout the process of the development of regulations and implementation. Recommendations: 1) The CMA recommends that the federal government take a broad public health policy approach in legalizing marijuana for non-medical purposes, and that it be held accountable to these public health objectives. Section 1 2) The CMA recommends that the federal government incorporate the following measures to support improved implementation of the legalization of marijuana: a) Ensure sufficient time to adequately prepare for the implementation of the legalized regime, including a phased-in approach and piloting legalization in smaller regions prior to national roll-out; b) Assess international experience with legalization and incorporate lessons-learned from other jurisdictions into Canada’s approach; c) Assess the domestic experience in the regulation of tobacco and alcohol against meeting the national objectives for each substance and incorporate lessons-learned from those experiences; and, d) Develop capacity for national surveillance to ensure rigorous national-level monitoring and evaluation. e) Support for a research agenda. 3) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit the marketing and advertising of marijuana and that packaging requirements include plain packaging, potency labelling and health warnings. The CMA further recommends that the federal government prohibit flavouring and shapes. 4) The CMA recommends that the federal government employ taxation and pricing levers to discourage consumption and that the revenues of this taxation be allocated to the provinces and territories and clearly allocated for health and social services. 5) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish potency restrictions to reduce the harms associated with higher potencies. 6) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish dosing restrictions on marijuana products, notably edibles. 7) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish maximum limits on quantities of marijuana that can be purchased. 8) The CMA recommends that the federal government employ effective public education tools, including skills-based training, to inform youth and families of the risks and harms of marijuana usage. 9) The CMA recommends that the federal government expand access and availability of substance use, mental health and social stabilization services simultaneously to the legalization of marijuana. 10) As part of this initiative, the CMA recommends that the federal government implement a plan to expand training programs in addiction medicine. 11) The CMA recommends that the federal government set the minimum age of purchase and consumption at 21 and that quantities and potency be restricted for those under the age of 25. 12) The CMA recommends that the federal government establish the minimum age at the national level to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions. Section 2 13) The CMA supports a tightly regulated competitive model wherein production and distribution is heavily regulated and includes strict oversight. 14) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit home cultivation in the legalized system for non-medical use. 15) The CMA recommends that the federal government evaluate the requirements established by the MMPR system for production, packaging, storage and distribution to introduce improvements for implementation in the new legalized system for non-medical use. Section 3 16) The CMA recommends that the distribution model should occur outside health care structures, for example, in liquor stores, and that storefront densities should be federally set and restrictive. 17) The CMA recommends that the distribution model should be established at the federal level and be consistent across jurisdictions. 18) The CMA recommends a phased implementation approach prior to national availability. Section 4 19) The CMA recommends that the federal government reallocate resources to the enforcement of marijuana infractions to public health, education and treatment programs. 20) The CMA recommends that the federal government ensure that a clear and reliable process for identifying, testing and imposing consequences on individuals who operate a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana be in place nationally prior to the legalization of marijuana. 21) The CMA recommends that the federal government prohibit smoking of marijuana for non-medical purposes in public places. Section 5 22) The CMA recommends that there be only one regime for marijuana, following legalization of non-medical marijuana, with provisions for the medical needs of those who would not be able to acquire marijuana in a legal manner, e.g., those below the minimum age or those with a requirement for a more potent product than legally available. CMA Statement - Legalization of Marijuana Ottawa, September 9, 2016 - The CMA's submission to the Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation is framed by the fundamental position that the legalization of marijuana is a societal prerogative; the CMA is not weighing in on this decision as it has already been made. Keeping with our mandate as the national voice for the highest standards of health and health care, the CMA is squarely focused on minimizing the negative impact on individuals and public health. The CMA has longstanding concerns about the health risks associated with consuming marijuana, particularly in smoked form. Children and youth are particularly at risk for marijuana-related harms, given their brain is undergoing rapid, extensive development. As such, the CMA's submission is framed by the overarching recommendation that the government must take a broad public health policy approach in developing the legalization framework. Focusing on the legalization issue alone is inadequate to deal with the complexity of the situation. The CMA recommendations build on Canada's experience regulating alcohol and tobacco. The legalization framework must include:
Marketing and packaging restrictions
Restrictions on the types of products and their potency
Prohibiting home cultivation
Expanding access to support services such as mental health and substance use services
Expanding access to training programs in addiction medicine, and
Making extensive educational resources on the risks of harm to the user and others available We must recognize that the legalization of marijuana is a complex matter. Overall the CMA has submitted to the Task Force 22 evidence-based recommendations for a broad public health approach. For interviews: mediainquiries@cma.ca 613-806-1865
Documents
Less detail

Letter - CMA Submission to the Minister of Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9286
Last Reviewed
2009-02-21
Date
2000-09-06
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Last Reviewed
2009-02-21
Date
2000-09-06
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) values the open, constructive and ongoing dialogue that has developed over the past year with you and your ministry in seeking solutions to the critical issues and challenges that face Canada's health system. As an open society, it is essential to the future of the health care system that every effort is made to work together to find lasting solutions to what is a series of complex and interdependent social policy issues. With many policy challenges placed squarely on the table, it is timely that we move beyond issue identification and strive to develop a comprehensive plan for health care that incorporates a set of solutions that are strategic, targeted, long-term, and sustainable. Given the evolving nature of the health care system, the plan must also be flexible, adaptive and innovative. To assist you as you enter into extensive policy discussions with your provincial and territorial colleagues, CMA believes it is crucial that there is a clear sense of where the medical profession stands on a number of issues. The purpose of the letter is to outline an action plan to revitalize Canada's health care system. The plan is a series of constructive proposals in which the sum is greater than the individual components. The proposals are grouped under the categories of sustainable and accountable federal funding, national health system innovation and physician resource strategy. This information will likely form the basis of the CMA's presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance later this Fall. By their very nature, the proposals are strategically targeted and align policy solutions to a number of key policy challenges that face the health care system today, tomorrow and into the future. The proposals are designed to complement one another. They should be considered as a series of investments that address a spectrum of policy issues in the health care system. Our proposals are designed in such a manner that they are sufficiently flexible in meeting provincial and territorial health care priorities, while ensuring that the federal government is fully recognized for its essential investment. Furthermore, to promote a higher degree of accountability, transparency and legitimacy, each proposal sets out its own rationale and includes, where possible, an order-of-magnitude cost estimate. In specific terms, the total cost of the recommendations that the CMA is putting forward is a minimum of $10.15 billion. Each investment is accounted for as follows: * Health-specific Federal Cash Restoration $3.81 billion * National Health Technology Fund $1.74 billion * National Health Connectivity Investment $4.10 billion * National Physician Resource Strategy $0.50 billion Total $10.15 billion The attached documents summarize our recommendations and provide detailed information each proposal. The CMA has offered a powerful and strategic combination of policy initiatives designed to revitalize Canada's health care system. The proposals are realistic, practical and serve to focus on making the health care system one that is innovative, responsive and accessible by all Canadians. Finally, it must also be made clear that no one group can address all of the policy issues and challenges facing the health care system. Thus, the CMA's commitment to working with the federal government and others to ensure that our health care system will be there for all Canadians in need is once again offered. The CMA looks forward to discussing with you how these specific proposals can be implemented. Sincerely yours, Original signed by Peter Barrett Peter Barrett, MD, FRCSC President enclosures c.c. Prime Minister and Provincial and Territorial Premiers Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Health Federal Minister of Finance CMA Board of Directors CMA Provincial and Territorial Divisions and Affiliated Societies SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS September 6, 2000 In seeking to place the health care system on the road to long-term sustainability, the CMA is committed to working in close partnership with the federal government and others identifying, developing and implementing policy initiatives that serve to strengthen Canadians' access to quality health care. In the spirit of placing Canada's health care system on the road to recovery, the CMA offers the following recommendations: 1. That the federal government fund Canada's publicly financed health care system on a long-term, sustainable basis to ensure quality health care for all Canadians. 2. That the federal government, in consultation with the provinces and territories, and stakeholders, introduce a health-specific cash transfer mechanism to promote greater public accountability, transparency and linkage of sources to their respective uses. 3. That the federal government, at a minimum, increase federal cash for health care by an additional $3.8 billion, effective immediately. 4. That beginning April 1, 2001, the federal government introduce an escalator mechanism that will grow the real value of health-specific cash over time. 5. That the federal government must allocate new monies, over and above the $3.8 billion increase to the health-specific cash floor to facilitate the development of a comprehensive and seamless system of care. 6. That the federal government commit a minimum of $1.74 billion over three years to A National Health Technology Fund, to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies. 7. That the federal government make a minimum investment of $4.1 billion in National Health Connectivity 8. That the federal government immediately establish a Physician Education and Training Fund in the amount of $500 million to fund: (1) increased enrolment in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education; and (2) the expanded infrastructure (both human and physical resources) of Canada's 16 medical schools needed to accommodate the increased enrolment. 9. That the federal government increase funding targeted to institutes of postsecondary education to alleviate some of the pressures driving tuition fee increases. 10. That the federal government enhance financial support systems for medical students, provided that they are: (a) non-coercive; (b) developed concomitantly or in advance of any tuition increase; (c) in direct proportion to any tuition fee increase; and (d) provided at levels that meet the needs of the students. ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY... AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REVITALIZE CANADA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM September 2000 SUSTAINABLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FEDERAL FUNDING Since the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) on April 1, 1996, the CMA has taken the strong position that the federal government must restore the level of federal cash notionally allocated to health care that was in place in 1995. Since that time, the federal government has introduced a series of important first steps towards stabilizing Canada's health care system. Specifically, in 1999, the government announced a five-year fiscal framework that reinvested $11.5 billion, on a cumulative basis, in the health care system. In the budget papers, it was clear that this money was to be earmarked for the health care system only. In 2000, an additional one-time investment of $2.5 billion, unearmarked through the CHST over four years, was announced. While seen as a series of important first steps, the figures, however, must be placed in context. Specifically, it is important to note that the CHST monies that have been announced are a combination of increases to the CHST cash floor and "one-time" injections (i.e., "supplements"). Table 1 accounts for the increases via the CHST and its supplement. (NOTE Table content does not display correctly -- SEE PDF) TABLE 11 CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER BUDGET IMPACTS (1999 AND 2000) 1999/00 TO 2003/04 ($ BILLIONS) Year 1999/00 2000/01* 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 5 Years Budget 2000 Increase CHST Supplement** -- 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 Budget 1999 Increase CHST Supplement*** CHST Cash Floor 2.0 -- 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 -- 2.5 -- 2.5 3.5 8.0 Budget 1998 Cash 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 62.5 Total CHST Cash 14.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 76.5 CHST Tax Transfers 14.9 15.3 15.8 16.5 17.2 79.7 Total CHST 29.4 30.8 31.3 32.0 32.7 156.2 * All figures for 2000/01 onward, with the exception of CHST cash, are projections. ** The $2.5 billion cash supplement will be paid to a third party trust and accounted for in 1999/00 by the federal government. Payments will be made in a manner that treats all jurisdictions equitably, regardless of when they draw down funds over four years. *** The $3.5 billion cash supplement was paid into a third party trust and accounted for by the federal government in 1998/99. In the latter case, these "CHST supplements," totaling $3.5 billion over three years in 1999 and $2.5 billion over four years in 2000 are specifically designed not to be included as part of the CHST cash floor. Nor is it intended to grow over time through an escalator. In fact the supplement, which is framed as a multi-year investment is charged to the preceding year's budget. Thus, once allocated and spent, the money is gone. While the CHST supplements were important first steps, the CMA views them as "tentative half-measures" and by no means a substitute for fostering short-, medium- and/or long-term planning of the health care system. A long-term commitment by the federal government is required to increase its health-specific cash allocation. Recognizing the limitations of the CHST supplement, on an annual basis, this means that CHST cash for health care increased by $2.0 billion in 1999/00; it will remain at the same level for 2000/01 and then increase by $500 million (to $2.5 billion) in 2001/02, and remain at that level for the 2002/03 and 2003/04. In other words, only in 2002/03 will the CHST cash floor return to its 1995 nominal spending levels, 7 years after the fact, with no adjustment for the increasing health care needs of Canadians, inflation or economic growth. The budget announcements by the federal government in 1998/99 and 1999/00 are presented in Table 2. Please note that the amounts applied to the CHST cash floor and the cash supplements have been separated. TABLE 2 TOTAL CHST CASH, HEALTH-SPECIFIC CHST CASH, CHST SUPPLEMENT 1995/96 TO 2003/04 ($ BILLION) Year Total CHST Cash CHST Cash for Health Care* CHST Supplement Total CHST Cash for Health Care 1995/96 18.5 7.59 N/A 7.59 1996/97 14.7 6.03 N/A 6.03 1997/98 12.5 5.13 N/A 5.13 1998/99 12.5 5.13 N/A 5.13 1999/00 12.5 + 2.0 = 14.5 5.13 3.5 8.63 2000/01 13.5 + 2.0 = 15.5 6.13 2.5 8.63** 2001/02 14.5 + 1.0 = 15.5 7.13 N/A 7.13 2002/03 15.0.+ 0.5 = 15.5 7.63 N/A 7.63 2003/04 15.0 + 0.5 = 15.5 7.63 N/A 7.63 * It is assumed that in 1995/96 the notional allocation to health care is 41% of CHST. Prior to the introduction of the CHST, Established Programs Financing (EPF) and the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) were in place. In addition, federal cash that has been "earmarked" allocated for health care and added to the CHST base, as outlined in the past two federal budgets, are included ** Assumes that the $2.5 billion supplement was allocated to health care only. It is important to pay careful attention with regard to how the figures have been derived and on what basis. Close attention has been paid to the distinction between the increase to the CHST cash floor and the introduction of a "CHST supplement," which has been applied by the federal government over the last two years. In the latter case, the supplement has not been factored into the CHST cash floor analysis since it is a one time expenditure, charged to the previous fiscal year, that can never grow over time. Simply put, once allocated it is gone in perpetuity and does not have any further application in terms of facilitating future growth of the CHST cash floor. Based on Table 2, it is estimated that the CHST cash floor in support of health care currently stands at $6.13 billion in 2000/01. This is roughly $1.5 billion below the 1995/96 level without adjusting the cash floor in support of health care to reflect a number of factors including, a growing and aging population, the depreciation of the system's physical infrastructure, the cost of pharmaceuticals, or inflation, to name a few. At a minimum, the federal government must put back what it has taken out of the system. Specifically, the CMA believes that the federal government must re-establish the level of CHST cash allocated to health care at the 1995 level, adjusted to reflect the changing health care needs of Canadians in the coming year of 2001. The question then becomes on what basis can one arrive at a reasonable estimate? Based on a recent study prepared by the Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Health, the CMA believes that this is an important point of departure in considering orders of magnitude.2 Therefore, if one applies the growth factor that was recently calculated by the Provinces and Territories in its "cost driver" study (at 4.6% per annum), the health portion of CHST cash in 1995 at $7.59 billion is adjusted upwards to $9.94 billion in 2001 dollars (see Table 3). TABLE 3 ESTIMATED VALUE OF CHST HEALTH-SPECIFIC CASH FLOOR 1995/96 TO 2001/02 ($ BILLIONS) YEAR CURRENT CHST CASH FLOOR FOR HEALTH CARE ESCALATOR APPLIED TO BASE YEAR OF 1995/96 (% INCREASE) EXPECTED HEALTH-SPECIFIC CASH FLOOR 1995/96 7.59 4.6 1996/97 6.03 4.6 7.94 1997/98 5.13 4.6 8.30 1998/99 5.13 4.6 8.69 1999/00 5.13 4.6 9.09 2000/01 6.13 4.6 9.50 2001/02 7.13 4.6 9.94 Based on the recent combination of announcements by the federal government to increase the CHST cash floor and the supplements, it is estimated that the 2000/2001 health-specific cash floor stands at $6.13 billion. Therefore, to bring the health-specific cash that flows through the CHST in line with the changing health care needs of Canadians, it should, at a minimum, increase by $3.81 billion effective immediately. In reviewing the approach taken by the CMA, it is important to understand that the $3.81 billion figure is a health-specific cash calculation only. As the CHST is currently configured, it flows federal cash for health, post-secondary education and income support programs. Currently, the Provinces and Territories are adamant that the federal government return the CHST cash floor to its 1993-94 level of $18.7 billion by adding $4.2 billion immediately. However, the $4.2 billion that is being requested is in "1993/94 dollars"; it is not adjusted to account for the changing needs of Canadians between 1993/94 and 2000/2001 for health, post-secondary education or income support programs. While raising the health-specific cash floor will serve to stabilize the system, it is likely that there will be future debate about what is the appropriate share of federal cash. While there are those who factor in the value of the tax point transfer, it is only federal cash that can be used to sanction the provinces and territories that are in violation of the Canada Health Act.3 As the Minister of Health was recently quoted "For the Canadian government to continue to have the moral authority to influence reform, we have to be a more robust contributor."4 In this context, the adage "no cash, no clout applies" in its strictest sense. Therefore, while federal cash must be reinfused into the health care system, there must also be substantive policy discussion about what the federal government's contribution should be in the future, and through what mechanism. For example, should it be a fixed amount only; should it be tied to provincial/territorial public expenditures on health; and/or how should it grow over time? The Need for Financial Accountability In making a critical investment in the health care system, the CMA strongly supports the principle of financial accountability. This is consistent with the federal government's call for increased accountability in the health care system. After all, if the federal government is calling on provincial and territorial governments, and providers to be more accountable for what they do, then the federal government should be prepared to be measured by the very same principle when it comes to funding Canada's health care system. Therefore, every effort should be made to ensure that health-specific federal monies are visible and transparent. The CMA view is also consistent with the underpinnings of the recently negotiated Social Union Framework Agreement which calls for greater public accountability on all levels of government. These issues have been recently noted by the Auditor-General of Canada "Under the CHST, the federal government does not know its exact total contribution to provinces and territories for health care as distinct from social assistance and services and post-secondary education."5 The report goes on to recommend that the federal government explore options to improve information on its total contribution to health care, and work with the provinces and territories to develop requirements for information and reporting purposes with respect to CHST additional funds. The Canadian Institute for Health Information also observed that "following the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) in April 1996, total federal contributions to health care cannot be clearly defined."6 Furthermore a recent policy document released by Mr. Tom Kent, one of the policy architects of Medicare in the 1960s, refers to the CHST as "jelly...It can be varied as we choose, spent however each province chooses." 7 He also says "Ensure that the federal financial contribution to the medicare partnership is made continuingly clear. This transparency is required not only for the credit of the present government but, equally, to protect the provinces against any future federal government thinking that it could cut its funding with little political penalty...In short, the federal need for recognition of funding and the provincial need for security of funding are not in conflict."8 In many ways, the announcement of the $11.5 billion, cumulatively, in 1999 was a de facto recognition of the need for a health-specific allocation in support of health care. The recent calculations released by the Federal Department of Finance only serve to reinforce this point.9 At a time of increased societal awareness and demand for accountability, the CHST mechanism appears to be anachronistic by having one indivisible cash transfer that does not recognize explicitly the federal government's contribution to health in a post-Social Union Agreement world. Therefore, the CHST cash transfer mechanism should be restructured to ensure that there is a higher degree of transparency and explicit linkage between the sources of federal funding and their respective uses at the provincial and territorial level. This can be achieved such that the provinces and territories have the flexibility to allocate resources on the basis of agreed-upon priorities, while ensuring that the federal government is fully recognized for its investment. It would also underscore the relationship between financial "inputs" and health "outputs." A Mechanism to Grow the Real Value of Health-Specific Federal Cash Over Time In addition to increasing the federal cash floor in support of health care, there is also the need to ensure that the cash can grow over time to meet the future needs of Canadians. With this in mind, the CMA recommends the re-introduction of an escalator mechanism to grow the real value of health-specific federal cash. If left as is, federal cash will continue to erode over time with increasing demands from an ageing and growing population, epidemiological trends, new technologies, to name a few. In previous years, the CMA has proposed an escalator formula which recognizes that future health care costs are not always synchronized with economic growth. In fact, in times of economic hardship (e.g., unemployment, stress, and familial discord), a greater burden is placed on the health care system. The concept of an escalator is not new. In fact, at the time of Established Programs Financing, a three-year moving average of nominal Gross Domestic Product per capita was in place. This policy was regrettably tinkered with and then eliminated in the mid-1990s.10 Thus, the CMA believes that now is the time to reintroduce a policy measure that served federal-provincial/territorial fiscal relations well. Such a policy measure would be a clear signal to the provinces and territories that the federal government is prepared to be there over the long-term, and is prepared to move away from the annual finger-pointing that plagues federal/provincial/territorial collaboration when it comes to the future of the health care system. To illustrate the financial impact of an escalator, if the federal government's health-specific cash floor is $9.94 billion, assuming an escalator of 4.6% would yield an additional $457 million to the provinces and territories in year 1, and $547 million in year 5. This is not prohibitive when one considers the current revenues of the federal government, and its anticipated series of surpluses.11 It should also be noted that these recommendations are consistent with the direction set out by the National Liberal Caucus Task Force on Health Care Sustainability.12 Combined, the issues of the level of health-specific federal cash for health care and the need for an escalator mechanism speak not only to the fundamental principles of the necessity of stabilizing the health care system, but also in terms of the federal government taking the necessary concrete leadership steps to ensure that adequate and long-term funding is available to meet the health care needs of all Canadians. Their rationale is reasoned and strategic; they give the federal government full recognition for its investment and the provinces and territories flexibility in allocating monies to meet their respective priorities. It also serves to build on and strengthen the core foundation of Canada's health care system. If Canada's health care system is not only to survive, but thrive in the new millennium, we must give serious consideration to a range of possible solutions that place our system, and the federal role within that system, on a more secure and sustainable financial footing. The CMA therefore recommends: 1. That the federal government fund Canada's publicly financed health care system on a long-term, sustainable basis to ensure quality health care for all Canadians. 2. That the federal government, in consultation with the provinces and territories, and stakeholders, introduce a health-specific cash transfer mechanism to promote greater public accountability, transparency and linkage of sources to their respective uses. 3. That the federal government, at a minimum, increase federal cash for health care by an additional $3.8 billion, effective immediately. 4. That beginning April 1, 2001, the federal government introduce an escalator mechanism that will grow the real value of health-specific cash over time. Looking to the Future... While the federal government must make a series of investments to stabilize the health care system, it must also consider the broader spectrum of health care services needed to ensure that Canadians do not fall through the cracks. In the past, the CMA has proposed a Health System Renewal Fund. The purpose of the multi-year fund was to recognize the changing nature of our health care system and to facilitate the development of a more comprehensive and seamless system of care. The Fund proposed that as the system continues to evolve additional transitional funding is required to ensure that it remains accessible, and can do so with minimal interruption to Canadians. That being said, over the longer-term, the CMA recognizes that the federal government will have to move from transitional funding to investing significant new federal dollars that will not jeopardize access to quality acute care services. The CMA recommends: 5. That the federal government must allocate new monies, over and above the $3.8 billion increase to the health-specific cash floor to facilitate the development of a comprehensive and seamless system of care. HEALTH SYSTEM INNOVATION In reviewing the current state of Canada's health care system and the need to carefully consider its future, there are at least two fundamental issues that require our collective wisdom and action. First, there is the need for long-term sustainable funding. The second concerns the overall structure of the health care system, and the degree to which it must be revitalized. Often portrayed as a separate set of strategic policy issues, system funding and system structure are linked inextricably in a practical sense when it comes to ensuring timely access to quality health care. When it comes to structure, the CMA is of the view that renewal and innovation is essential if we, as a society, are to ensure that our health system remains sustainable and responsive over the short-, medium- and longer-term. While we must ensure that the health care system of tomorrow is structurally sound, it must also be sufficiently flexible, adaptive and focused on excellence. The CMA, therefore, proposes that the federal government invest in two areas that are strategically targeted, and serve to facilitate future innovation, adaptability and flexibility in the health care system. At the same time, they also give the provinces and territories full flexibility in determining their priorities within the mandate of the funds while giving the federal government full recognition for its investment. National Health Technology Fund As part of the CMA's submission to the 2000 House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance pre-budget consultations, it was recommended that the government establish a National Health Technology Fund. The purpose of the Fund is to address the significant concerns that have been raised about the lack of access to needed diagnostic and treatment technologies in Canada. Based on the most recent OECD information, Canada ranks poorly when it comes to the availability of technologies, ranking 12th (out of 15) for CT Scanners; 11th (out of 13) for MRIs; and 10th (out of 11) for Lithotripters. Canada ranks favorably only in the availability of radiation equipment 5th (out of 13) OECD countries. Given the very real concerns that have been raised with regard to waiting times across the country, Canadians deserve better when it comes to making available needed health technologies that can effectively diagnose and treat disease. Furthermore, it is clear that we must do more to facilitate the diffusion of new cost-effective health technologies that are properly evaluated and meet defined standards of quality. While physicians are trained to provide quality medical care to all Canadians, they must, at the same time, have "the tools" to do so. In the absence of ready access to current and emerging health technologies, Canadians face the prospect of continued and untreated progression of disease, increased anxiety over their health status, and possibly premature death, while the health care system and society bears the direct and indirect costs associated with delayed access. If Canada were to provide a level of access to these medical technologies that was comparable to other countries with similar standards of living, a minimum expenditure of $1.0 billion would be required for capital costs alone. Our proposal, however, recommends that targeted resources be provided to the provinces and territories to operate the equipment for a three-year period at an overall cost of $1.74 billion. This would give the provinces and territories the opportunity to factor in these additional resources into their respective health budgets. The CMA recommends: 6. That the federal government commit a minimum of $1.74 billion over three years to A National Health Technology Fund, to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies. For your information, a copy of the detailed proposal is enclosed. National Health Connectivity Investment In addition to a national health technologies fund there is a need for significant attention to be paid to ensure access to both hardware and software in order to develop a health information infrastructure that will create "connectivity" throughout the health care system. The health care system operates within an information intensive environment. However, to date, a substantial amount of the data being collected is gleaned as a derivative of administrative or billing/financial systems. Although this provides useful information for arriving at a "high level" view of the operation of the health care system, it is generally of limited value to health care providers at the interface with their patients. Much of the recent debate about the future of the health care system has focused on the need to improve its adaptability and overall integration. One critical ingredient in re-vitalizing the system has to with the necessary information technologies that physicians and other health care professionals must have at their disposal. Specifically, health care providers require access to a secure electronic health record (EHR) that provides details of all health services provided to the patient in front of them. An EHR that meets the clinical needs of health care providers when interacting with their patients will serve to benefit not only the health of Canadians, but the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system. Introduction of new technology, such as an EHR, should be viewed as a "social investment" in the acquisition of knowledge. This benefits patients through the potential reduction in mortality/morbidity rates due to misdiagnosis and improper treatment as well as the reduction in medication errors through access to online drug reference databases and by largely eliminating handwritten prescriptions. Health promotion and disease prevention is enhanced through improved monitoring and patient education as well as improved decision-making by providers and patients. These benefits represent only a sub-set of the potential benefits to Canadians. There are many benefits to providers in having access to an EHR, ranging from administrative cost savings to decreased loss of medical records and improved privacy from physical intrusion of a medical record. The healthcare system as a whole benefits from increased efficiencies and effectiveness. In the United States, the Veterans Health Services and Research Administration (VHSRA) in a controlled prospective study found that a computerized patient record to support providers in outpatient geriatric clinics resulted in cost reductions and improvements in the quality and outcomes of patient care. With baby boomers some 10 - 15 years from retirement, cost reductions and improvements in the quality and outcomes of patient care are not an insignificant benefit of an EHR.13 With this as an introduction, the CMA recommends to the federal government that a national investment in health connectivity be established with the objective of improving the health of Canadians as well as improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system by funding an information technology infrastructure for the health care system. The CMA has determined that a preliminary estimate of the total initial cost of such an investment in knowledge acquisition is a point order-of-magnitude estimate of $4.1 billion. This represents a capital of cost $1.6 billion with a five year implementation and operating costs of $2.5 billion, plus or minus 20%. The yearly operating costs after 5 years are estimated to be $830 million. Of course, substantial additional work is required to arrive at more precise cost estimates as well as the potential savings of such an endeavour. Such an investment would provide Canadians with a bold vision of the future of health care and the federal government's role in moving the health care system into the future. The CMA proposal for an investment in National Health Connectivity dovetails with the recent views of the First Ministers at their most recent meeting. The CMA concurs with the views of First Ministers that the broadened application of information and communications technologies to the health care sector will improve the quality, timeliness and integration of health care services. The CMA, as the representative of Canadian physicians, can play a pivotal partnership role in achieving the buy-in and cooperation of physicians and other health care providers, through a multi-stakeholder process that would encompass the health care team. Our involvement would be a critical success factor in helping the federal government in making a connected health care system a realizable goal in the years to come. The CMA therefore recommends: 7. That the federal government make a minimum investment of $4.1 billion in National Health Connectivity. NATIONAL PHYSICIAN RESOURCE STRATEGY As the federal government is aware, Canada is experiencing a physician shortage that will be significantly exacerbated in the next decade. In November 1999, when the Canadian Medical Forum (CMF) and Society of Rural Physicians of Canada met with the federal and provincial governments, a detailed report on physician supply, containing five specific recommendations, was submitted. The CMA and the other CMF organizations are encouraged to see that many of the jurisdictions across Canada agreed with the need to increase enrolment in undergraduate medical education programs, although we are still far from the 2,000 by 2000 proposed by the CMF. These increases in undergraduate enrolment in medicine require funding not only for the positions themselves, but also for the necessary infrastructure (human and physical resources) to ensure high quality training. The concomitant increases in postgraduate positions that will be required three to four years after entry into medical school must also be resourced appropriately. It is important to note that these positions are independent of the extra positions recommended in the November 1999 CMF report that are needed to increase: (a) flexibility in the postgraduate training system; (b) the capacity to provide training to international medical graduates; and (c) opportunities for reentry for physicians who have been in practice.) The federal government needs to demonstrate its commitment to the principle of self-sufficiency in the production of physicians to meet the medical needs of the Canadian population. The CMA recommends: 8. That the federal government immediately establish a Physician Education and Training Fund in the amount of $500 million to fund: (1) increased enrolment in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education; and (2) the expanded infrastructure (both human and physical resources) of Canada's 16 medical schools needed to accommodate the increased enrolment. Escalation and Deregulation of Tuition Fees The CMA remains very concerned about high, and rapidly escalating, medical school tuition fee increases across Canada. The CMA is particularly concerned about their subsequent impact on the physician workforce and the Canadian health care system. In addition to the significant impact of high tuition fees on current and potential medical students, the CMA believes that high tuition fees will have a number of consequences, including: (1) creating barriers to application to medical school and threaten the socioeconomic diversity of future health care providers serving the public; and (2) exacerbating the physician 'brain drain' to the United States so that new physicians can pay down their large and growing debts more quickly. The CMA decries tuition deregulation in Canadian medical schools and recommends: 9. That the federal government increase funding targeted to institutes of postsecondary education to alleviate some of the pressures driving tuition fee increases. 10. That the federal government enhance financial support systems for medical students, provided that they are: (a) non-coercive; (b) developed concomitantly or in advance of any tuition increase; (c) in direct proportion to any tuition fee increase; and (d) provided at levels that meet the needs of the students. Proposals for a National Health Technology Fund Currently, there is a crisis in confidence among Canadians that access to quality health care services will be there when they need it. In addition, there is a crisis of morale among health care providers who are concerned that they are not able to provide the quality care their patients need. One of the areas that your government could show strong and effective leadership is in the development of a national health technologies infrastructure program. In its 2000 pre-budget submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance the CMA made the following recommendation: "That the federal government establish a National Health Technology Fund to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies". The purpose of this recommendation recognizes that there are country-wide concerns with the availability of current health technologies in Canada and the speed with which the distribution of new technologies is taking place. In both instances, they have a direct impact on the ability of Canadians to access, within a reasonable time, needed health technologies. As a consequence, Canadians are facing ever-growing waiting lists for access to needed health technology services (including magnetic resonance imagers; computed tomography scanners; lithotripters; radiation therapy, dialysis) which are essential in the early detection of cancers (e.g., breast, prostate, lung), tumours, circulatory complications (e.g., stroke; hardening of the arteries) and treatment of disease. At the same time, physicians are either delayed or denied the ability to use proven state-of-the-art health technologies to assist them as clinicians. In the absence of ready access to current and emerging health technologies, Canadians face the prospect of continued and untreated progression of disease, increased anxiety over their health status, and possibly premature death, while the health care system and society bears the direct and indirect costs associated with delayed access. In considering this issue, the consensus view is that there is a lack of sustainable financial (i.e., capital) resources to purchase needed health technologies. As well, there also appears to be a lack of ongoing financial resources to ensure that the technology can be operated and maintained (i.e., operational) allowing for access on an ongoing basis. Notwithstanding the supply of health technologies, questions have also been raised about the adequate supply of health care professionals that are needed to operate the technology, and associated physical infrastructure to facilitate reasonable access to care. Currently Provincial and Territorial governments, and other groups have called on the federal government to continue its reinvestment in the health care system via the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST). However, one drawback of the transfer mechanism is that it is "blind" with no linkage or accountability between federal cash and its intended uses. Recognizing that there is an urgent need for additional funds to be invested and allocated for needed health technologies, the question from a policy perspective is how to design an accountable, targeted and visible program that will invest federal cash into a specific area of the health care system without intruding in the jurisdictional responsibilities of the Provinces and Territories. One approach is for the federal government to announce the creation of a National Health Technology Fund (NHTF). It is proposed that the NHTF would have the following features: 1) The NHTF would be a time-limited program with the singular focus of assisting the Provinces and Territories in the funding and acquisition of needed health technologies. 2) The NHTF would require that all Provinces and Territories apply to the federal government program for funding for needed health technologies. By so doing, it would give the Provinces and Territories full flexibility in determining their technological priorities, how many and what mix of technologies should be allocated in their jurisdiction. 3) The NHTF would provide full financing (i.e., capital) for the purchase of the technology, and defined resources to defray the operational costs associated with the health technologies across the country. Available monies to the Provinces and Territories could be allocated on a per capita basis and/or cost-sharing basis. 4) Once the program has been sun-setted, the Provinces and Territories would be responsible for the ongoing (operational) funding and maintenance for the technologies. The CMA believes that the form of the fund must be closely aligned with its function and would, therefore, make the following specific recommendations: 1. The NHTF would explicitly link the source of federal funding with its intended use at the Provincial and Territorial level - establishing a new level of federal accountability in financing strategic components of the health care system. 2. The federal government's investment in health care would be visible, with full recognition for the investment. 3. The federal government's investment would directly contribute to the increasing patient access to health technologies and reducing waiting lists across the country. 4. The NHTF would be targeted funding in an area of need. As designed, the NHTF would not be seen as intruding on the Provincial and Territorial decision-making process. The NHTF would give the Provinces and Territories full flexibility to apply for federal funding, as well as determining the number and mix of health technologies. Notwithstanding the immediacy and importance of the federal government making this critical investment in the health care system, there are a series of benefits to the federal government, Canadians and institutions/providers. The following are some of the benefits the CMA would ask you to consider: The Federal Government 1. The federal government begins the process of re-establishing its leadership role when it comes to preserving and enhancing Canadians' access to needed health technologies, and assisting in the stabilization of the acute care system. 2. The Fund avoids transferring non-earmarked money (such as via the CHST) to the Provinces and Territories, and ensures that it will be invested in a specific area of priority. 3. The NHTF is a visible and accountable Fund for which the federal government can take full credit. The Public 1. Canadians will benefit directly in terms of having increased access to needed health technologies. 2. Canadians will be fully aware of the federal government's investment into the acute care system. 3. Canadians will benefit in terms of quicker diagnosis and treatment of disease. 4. The public's confidence in its publicly financed health care system will improve. Improved access will reduce the direct (e.g., time off from work) and indirect costs (i.e., caring for family members) of illness, and accelerate Canadians' return to functional status. Health Care Institutions and Providers 1. The additional funding will give institutions increased flexibility in purchasing needed health technologies. 2. It will give institutions the ability to provide more readily accessible health care to Canadians. 3. Providers will have state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment tools to provide quality health care to all Canadians. The CMA has assessed the cost implications of this national initiative and this information is attached. In addition to a national health technologies fund there is a need for significant attention to be paid to ensure access to both hardware and software in order to develop a health information infrastructure that will create "connectivity" throughout the health care system. The objective would be to foster the integration of the components of the system across the continuum of care supported by evidence-based decision-making by both clinicians and managers. The CMA would like to work with you and your colleague, the Minister of Industry, to explore opportunities to work in partnership with the profession and Canada's high technology industrial sector to develop this health information infrastructure. It is our hope that your government will give serious consideration to our recommendation for a national health technologies fund. The CMA believes that such a fund is clearly warranted. Cost Estimates: In support of the Canadian Medical Association's proposal for a National Health Technology Fund, the following cost estimates, based on the best available data, for the acquisition of medical technology has been compiled. The most recent data available on medical technology comparisons between countries is from the OECD (1997). Equipment costs, in terms of acquisition, siting and operating costs where provided by CMA Affiliates as noted in the cost estimates. If Canada were to provide a level of access to these medical technologies that was comparable to other countries with similar standards of living a minimum expenditure of $1 billion would be required for capital costs alone. Our program, however, in keeping with the spirit of the Canada Health Act, recommends that resources be provided to the provinces/territories to operate the equipment for a three year period at an overall cost (capital and three years of operating costs) of $1.74 billion. This would give the provinces/territories the opportunity to factor in these additional operating costs into their respective health budgets over the three year period. It should be noted that the CMA's estimates do not address the aging state of Canada's existing medical technologies. Unfortunately, information is not available to provide an estimate of the costs of updating such equipment. Medical Technology Acquisition Cost Estimates: Purpose: To estimate the costs of funding a National Health Technology Program. Data Sources: * OECD Health Data 99 - Number of units of technology equipment per million population for countries reporting data for 1997 (most recent year). * Costing information courtesy of: 1) Canadian Association of Radiologists; 2) Winnipeg Health Region Authority; and 3) Canadian Urology Association Data: * Capital cost includes, equipment acquisition cost and siting cost (building space, mechanical, technical, electrical, etc.). * Operating cost includes, yearly service contract and estimate for technical support staff. It does not include expenditures on medical services. Methodology: 1) Medical technologies included: - Computed Tomography scanners (CT scanners) - Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRI) - Radiation therapy equipment (linear accelerators, cobalt-60 units, caesium-137 telepathy units, low to orthovoltage x-ray units, high dose rate brachytherapy units, low dose rate brachytherapy units, conventional brachytherapy) - Lithotripters (extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors) - Positron Emission Tomography (PET) 2) Technologies are expressed in units per million population and are compared only with countries included in the OECD database for 1997 that had a purchasing power parity PPP $ GDP per capita greater than $20,000. Canada's PPP GDP per capita in 1997 was $23,745 while the average for the comparator countries was $23,749. A GDP criteria for comparator inclusion was used to compare Canada with countries that have similar standards of living and potentially similar demands for access to their health care system and to medical technology. 3) The comparator countries are mainly from Europe which have a very high population density. The number of units per million population don't take into account the geographic diversity of Canada. 4) PET data were provided by the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) who stated there were 200 PETs in the world in 1998. Europe and the USA each had a 40% share with Canada having a 3% share used mostly for research. CAR estimates that accounting for population size; and growth; and that PETs in Canada are mostly used for research, an additional 10 units are required. 5) The equipment highlighted are more readily identifiable given their high acquisition costs but other medical technologies in Canadian hospitals need replacement or upgrading as well. For example, gamma cameras are generally 10 to 15 years old and need to be replaced with gated imaging cameras at a cost of $650,000 each. Colour doppler ultrasound machines are also required at $200,000 each. As well brachytherapy equipment, which is used for cancer treatment, is becoming increasingly obsolete and has a replacement cost of $750,000 per unit. 6) An 85% factor has been used to estimate requirements for other medical technologies. That is, CAR estimates that radiological high technology medical equipment represents 85% of the overall cost of radiological medical technology. Therefore overall capital costs (equipment and siting) have been grossed up by a factor of (1/.85) or 17.65% to allow for the purchase of other medical technology equipment that cannot be accounted for with the information available. 7) Equipment acquisition cost estimates (excluding siting costs) are based on average estimated costs. Depending upon the sophistication of the equipment the ranges are: CT scanners: $0.50m - $1.50m Linear accelerators: MRIs: $1.25m - $2.50m Low energy: $1.50m Lithotripters: $1.25m - $1.50m High energy $1.80m 8) Operating costs have been calculated over a three-year period so that all provinces/territories would be able to make use of the program which is in keeping with the spirit if not the terms of the Canada Health Act. It would also give them the opportunity to factor these additional operating costs into their respective health budgets after the 3 years. Caveats: The cost estimates reflect the additional cost of bringing Canada up to a standard of access to medical technology of developed countries with similar $ PPP GDP per capita. The cost estimates do not take into account any replacement of existing medical technology equipment that may be required. The acquisition cost of medical technology equipment is only one factor. Associated with such equipment are the costs of a physical site, yearly service contracts and the yearly operating cost of materials and personnel. Findings The estimated overall capital cost is $1 billion. The overall cost of the program, which includes resources to operate the equipment for a three year period, is $1.74 billion. 1 Source: Backgrounder on Federal Support for Health in Canada. March 29, 2000. Department of Finance. 2 Understanding Canada's Health Care Costs - Interim Report. Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Health, June 2000. 3 One must keep in mind that once the tax point transfer occurred, they are part of the provinces own-source revenue structure. The tax points cannot be repatriated to the federal government. Furthermore, with the creation of the CHST cash floor, the relationship between the level of federal cash and tax points has been formally severed. 4 Iglehart J. Restoring the Status of An Icon: A Talk With Canada's Minister of Health. Health Affairs, Volume 19, Number 3, page 133. 5 Report of the Auditor-General of Canada. Chapter 29 Federal Support of Health Care Delivery, November, 1999. 6 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Care in Canada - A First Annual Report. 2000. 7 Kent T. What Should Be Done About Medicare. Caledon Institute of Social Policy, August 1, 2000. pp 3-4 8 Ibid, page 2. 9 Backgrounder on Federal Support for Health in Canada. Department of Finance, March 29, 2000. 10 Thomson A. Diminishing Expectations - Implications of the CHST. May, 1996. 11Beauchesne. Federal Surplus Soars. Ottawa Citizen, August 18, 2000. Through the first three months of the current fiscal year, the surplus stands at $8.2 billion - 42% higher than last year at the same time. Extrapolated over the full year, the surplus would be $32.8 billion. . McCarthy S. Ottawa May Have $74 Billion to Allocate. Globe and Mail, August 29, 2000. The article reports that the Ottawa should have a $44 billion surplus over the next five years even after allowing spending to rise by more than $3 billion a year to cover population growth and inflation and setting aside $3 billion annually for debt reduction. 12 Investing in New Approaches to Health Care. National Liberal Caucus Task Force on Health Care Sustainability. June 14, 2000. pp 3. 13Dammond KW, Prather RJ, Date VV, King CA. Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 20, No. 4, pages 267-279, 1990, "A Provider-Interactive Medical Record Can Favorably Influence Costs and Quality of Medical Care."
Documents
Less detail

Letter on cross-border pharmacy control

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1947
Last Reviewed
2013-03-02
Date
2005-11-08
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Last Reviewed
2013-03-02
Date
2005-11-08
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
On behalf of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) I would like to respond to Health Canada’s papers, released on October 7, 2005, “Developing a Drug Supply Network and an Export Restriction Scheme” and “Requiring a Patient-Practitioner Relationship as a Condition of Sale of Prescription Drugs in Canada,” which invite discussion on the Minister of Health’s June 29, 2005 proposals to control cross-border pharmacy and ensure that Canadians have a continued supply of prescription drugs. The CMA agrees that Canadians must have a supply of drugs adequate to meet their needs. Currently the most serious threat to this supply appears to be the legislative proposals, currently before the United States Congress, that would allow Americans to purchase Canadian drugs in bulk. Proactive measures to protect our drug supplies are warranted to guard against this threat. In summary, our response to the Minister’s three proposals is as follows: * Supply monitoring network: We support supply monitoring as a necessary activity. * Export restrictions: We believe that all Canadian drugs should be subject to export restriction, and the Government of Canada should grant itself the power to enact bans on export as needed. * Requiring a patient-physician relationship: We do not believe this proposal can be enforced, or that it will contribute materially to securing an adequate drug supply for Canada. We recommend that Health Canada instead support the activities of medical and pharmacy regulatory authorities in ensuring that prescribing behaviour is appropriate. Our detailed comments on the proposals are below. 1) Drug supply monitoring system The CMA strongly supports the development of a comprehensive strategy and an adequately resourced system for monitoring domestic drug supply. Canada needs such a system to identify shortages and respond quickly to remedy them, and to ensure that policy and regulatory decisions are founded on accurate and reliable knowledge. We recommend that more careful consideration be given to the most effective design and functioning for a supply-monitoring network. It is our understanding that manufacturers and distributors currently monitor supply of their own products. Ideally, a mechanism should be found to unite these individual activities into a robust and effective network without creating a costly parallel effort. Specific comments follow: * 2.1 Gathering Drug Shortage Information: Voluntary reporting is a preferred approach. In designing a voluntary scheme, it should be taken into account that soliciting reports from a wide variety of players, including the public, may result in a flood of anecdotal, poorly documented reports that will require expert analysis to verify and put into context. Regardless of who is solicited for shortage reports, the reporting process should be made as clear, simple and user-friendly as possible, and all stakeholders who might be in a position to make reports should be made aware of its existence. * 2.2 Assessment and Verification: We agree that a baseline of drug inventory data is required, as are benchmarks for what constitutes an appropriate drug supply for Canada. These should be established as a first step, before the implementation of a voluntary reporting scheme. * 2.3 Communication of Information: While physicians may seldom be in a position to report drug shortages, it is essential that they be informed at once when a shortage exists, and how long it is expected to last. Guidance for physicians on measures they might take while the shortage lasts (for example, other drugs they might prescribe as substitutes) is highly desirable. Medical associations could help Health Canada communicate this information to their members. The paper makes reference to Health Canada’s preference for collaboration in this endeavour “without assuming responsibility for becoming the primary source of information for Canadians on drug shortages or for resolving all reported drug shortages.” This is not appropriate. Leadership responsibilities and public expectations preclude the Minister from shirking responsibility for these functions. Accountability for such a complex network must be vested in one authority, i.e. Health Canada. * 2.4 Response measures: Though the paper lists response capacity as an element of drug supply monitoring, it does not contain practical suggestions for responding in the event of a shortage. This is a crucial element and needs to be developed. There is no point in monitoring supply without a plan for managing shortages. 2) Export Restriction CMA supports this proposal. The power to restrict export of drugs offers Canada its best chance of protection should the U.S. legalize bulk purchasing. This power should be strong and far-reaching. Serious consideration should be given to the June 2005 motion from the House Standing Committee on Health motion to ban all bulk exports of prescription drugs. Specific comments follow: * 3.4.2 Drug products deemed necessary for human health: The discussion paper proposes to restrict export only under certain circumstances, e.g. if the drug is deemed necessary to human health, and to establish criteria to determine whether a drug meets this condition. All prescription drugs are necessary for human health; certainly those who are taking them consider them so. For equity’s sake - and also because establishing and abiding by criteria may prove impossible - we believe every prescription drug in Canada should be considered a candidate for export restriction. * 3.4.3 Implications for patient care: We acknowledge that in many cases, other effective therapies can be substituted for drugs in short supply. Many physicians will make these substitutions as needed; but they must first be made aware of the shortages. Physicians must be advised of available alternatives if an unavoidable shortage exists; however, we caution that the existence of alternatives should not be used as justification for not taking action if a drug is in shortage. The final decision as to the most appropriate available therapy should remain a matter to be determined by the patient and physician and consultation. 3) Requiring a Patient-Practitioner Relationship The Minister has expressed his desire to ensure that physicians maintain high ethical and professional prescribing standards. The CMA shares this desire. As discussed in the attached CMA Statement on Internet Prescribing (Appendix I), we hold that prescriptions should be written in the context of an appropriate patient-physician relationship. However, we do not accept that the proposed option of requiring an established patient-practitioner relationship for every prescription issued in Canada will have a meaningful effect on ensuring adequate drug supply, for the following reasons: * The proposal does not target the real problem. Most current drug shortages are caused by raw material shortages, inventory management disruptions, unexpected spikes in demand, and other conditions that have nothing to do with the clinical encounter. More important, targeting the patient-practitioner relationship will not protect Canadians from the impact of U.S. bulk purchasing should legislation pass Congress. * Prescribing outside the context of the patient-physician relationship is already subject to sanction by medical regulatory authorities. The vast majorities of Canada’s physicians conduct themselves ethically and only prescribe for patients in the context of a professional relationship. Those who do not, contravene both the CMA’s policy and the standards of practice for provincial/territorial regulatory Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. These regulatory authorities, and the long and effective tradition of professional self-regulation they represent, should be respected and supported. * The proposal is burdensome and will be difficult to enforce. The proposal places the onus for evaluating the patient-practitioner relationship on pharmacists. While pharmacists are required, as part of their professional responsibility, to ensure that a prescription has been written by a physician licensed to practice in that jurisdiction, they are not customarily familiar with the details of the interaction leading up to the prescription. Requiring them to formally screen for this will impose a heavy administrative burden, and will compromise patient confidentiality. In addition, compliance monitoring by Health Canada will be complex, if feasible at all. For example, despite the Minister’s recent comment that prescriptions “can only be signed by a medical practitioner who actually sees and treats the patient in question”, it is generally accepted that perfectly legitimate prescribing can take place without a face-to-face encounter (e.g. through telemedicine) or an “ongoing” patient-physician relationship (e.g. in an emergency). While it is easy to detect flagrant infractions (such as a hundred prescriptions a day written for American patients by the same Canadian doctor) it will be much harder to precisely identify the boundary between what is legitimate prescribing behaviour and what is not. Many provincial regulatory authorities have already developed definitions of the patient-physician relationship, which Health Canada includes in the discussion document. It is unlikely that Health Canada will be able to improve on them. * Determining an appropriate relationship may be more appropriately a provincial or territorial responsibility. The patient-physician interaction, like other scope-of-practice issues, is regulated at the provincial level. We do not believe the cross-border prescribing problem justifies Health Canada’s overarching federal-level intervention. In conclusion, we support further exploration of the supply-monitoring and export-restriction options, and believe that existing medical and pharmaceutical regulatory authorities should be respected and supported in enforcing appropriate prescribing behaviour. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposals. We look forward to further opportunities for input during the development of legislation. Yours truly, Briane Scharfstein, MD, CCFP, MBA Associate Secretary General, Professional Affairs cc: Ms. Meena Ballantyne, Director General, Health Care Strategies and Policy Directorate, Health Canada CMA Provincial/Territorial Divisional CEO’s
Documents
Less detail

Letter on Strengthening the Pan-Canadian Public Health System discussion paper

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1957
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2004-03-22
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2004-03-22
Topics
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
I am writing in response to your letter inviting comment on the discussion paper Strengthening the Pan-Canadian Public Health System distributed in February 2004. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) welcomes the opportunity to participate in this consultation process on a national public health system. Our country’s experience combating SARS brought home to all of us the critical need for a strong and effective public health system to ensure that we are never again found unprepared to deal with the consequences of an emerging infectious disease. The commitments to establish a strong and effective public health system, a Canada Public Health Agency and a Chief Public Health Officer detailed in the February 2, 2004 Speech from the Throne have raised expectations across the land, and particularly within the public health community. In June 2003 CMA detailed a Public Health Action Plan in its submission to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health (Naylor Committee). The CMA’s Plan was further elaborated in our October 2003 submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Kirby Committee) hearing on public health governance and infrastructure. The CMA is also a founding member and active supporter of the Canadian Coalition for Public Health in the 21st Century. Both of the CMA submissions and the Coalition stress the need for strong leadership, capacity building and appropriate funding to ensure that Canada’s public health system is able to deal with the challenges ahead. In this submission I will first focus on the responsibility and actions the federal government can take now to create a strong and effective public health system and then comment on issues raised in the Strengthening the Pan-Canadian Public Health System discussion paper. The CMA believes that the country today has a rare opportunity to build a public health system for Canada that can take the best elements from the past while embracing new innovative approaches to the future. But to achieve the Speech from the Throne commitment to “establish a strong and responsive public health system” strong leadership is needed now. The federal government has a critical role to play. In both the United Kingdom and the United States, national leadership has been instrumental in clearly defining health goals for the population and stating the role of the public health system, its key infrastructure elements and the development of strategies to attain them. The CMA is pleased with your commitment and that of your government to the establishment of a Canada Public Health Agency (CPHA) but we can not stress strongly enough the need for you and your cabinet colleagues to take the bold steps needed to ensure that a national public health agency is truly independent. A CPHA that is not adequately funded and independent of the government bureaucracy will only result in a shuffling of the deck chairs. A credible Chief Public Health Officer (CPHO) must be appointed to lead the Agency, be the federal government’s chief medical officer of health (CMOH) and the country's chief spokesperson for all public health issues. The CPHA and the Chief Public Health Officer should have a central role in providing public health services to those areas falling under federal jurisdiction where local and provincial Chief Medical Officers of Health do not have access or authority. Airports, railways, military bases, aboriginal peoples living on reserve, federal meat packing plants and national parks are examples of areas under federal jurisdiction. The delivery of public health in these jurisdictions has been especially compromised by the lack of comprehensive coordination between provincial and federal systems. The federal CMOH should have all the powers and responsibilities of a provincial /territorial CMOH with respect to public health in federal jurisdictions. While there is an urgent need for the federal government to address problems with the delivery of public health services within its own backyard, it also must enhance co-ordination within the various federal departments and agencies that address public health concerns. In its submission to the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health the CMA also called for federal leadership in times of national health emergencies. The enactment of a Canada Emergency Health Measures Act would enhance the federal government’s “command and control” powers in a measured way during times of national health emergencies. The Act would give the federal government specific authority to act for a pre-determined, temporary period of time, during a declared extraordinary health emergency. It would also provide the authority for development of a graduated health alert system with corresponding public health interventions to enable a rapid co-ordinated response as a public health threat emerges.1 A systematic approach to health emergencies outlining roles, responsibilities and authority of jurisdictions would go a long way to avoiding the chaos and confusion that surrounded the country’s emergency response to SARS. Funding The public health infrastructure is the foundation that supports the planning, delivery and evaluation of public health activities. In 2001, a working group of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial (F/P/T) Advisory Committee on Population Health assessed the capacity of the public health system through a series of key informant interviews and literature reviews. The consistent finding was that public health had experienced a loss of resources and there was concern for the resiliency of the system infrastructure to respond consistently and proactively to the demands placed on it. It is essential that the federal government work with the provinces/ territories and municipalities to stop the hemorrhaging in public health across the country. We must stabilize and shore up the core public health capacity at the municipal, and provincial/territorial levels. At the federal level, in the short term, we must sustain our current capacity to tackle critical public health issues. The recent focus on infectious disease must not lead us to take monies from chronic disease prevention and health promotion to bolster efforts to manage outbreaks of infectious disease. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will only compound and exacerbate the challenges facing the public health system. All of the essential functions of public health must be recognized and resourced within a coherent public health strategy. This will require an investment of at least $1.5 billion over the next five years, beginning with an immediate commitment of $200 million in the upcoming budget. There is also a critical need for additional resources to reach the frontline public health workers in the many local agencies across Canada. In this regard, on March 12, 2004 the CMA, the Canadian Nurses Association, Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Canadian Healthcare Association wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to consider adding the recent one-time $2 billion transfer into the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) funding base and ear-mark 10% of this amount for public health action. Capacity building The infusion of $1.5 billion over the next five years would go a long way to provide federal, provincial/territorial and municipal governments with the tools needed to rebuild capacity in the public health system. An area needing immediate attention is human resource capacity. For the essential functions of the public health system to be realized, we need a public health workforce with appropriate and constantly updated skills. Unfortunately that workforce is extremely thin today. We need to invest in additional training capacity in all of the public health disciplines. CMA has proposed an investment of $50 million in 2004/05 to begin to strategically rebuild human resource capacity. To provide additional surge capacity CMA has further proposed the establishment of a Canadian public health emergency response service or Canadian Health Corps. The service would be made up of a core group of highly trained and mobile public health professionals, employed by the federal government, to be directed by the Chief Public Health Officer. A complementary ‘reserve pool’ or volunteer relief network would be made up of acute health care and public health professionals willing to be deployed anywhere in Canada on short notice to provide services during health emergencies. A predetermined and pre-licensed pool of professionals that can respond to a call to action in times of crisis is a critical resource that must be established before we are faced with another emergency situation. Canadians expect the federal government to assume its responsibility to provide national leadership in public health. Visionary leadership, investment and capacity building are essential components of a reinvigorated public health system. It is within this context that CMA has reviewed the Strengthening the pan-Canadian public health system discussion paper. Strengthening the pan-Canadian public health system The discussion paper Strengthening the Pan-Canadian Public Health System unfortunately positions the planning assumptions for a national public health strategy within the traditional F/P/T process. While we are encouraged with the commitment of the F/P/T Ministers of Health to work collaboratively on the creation of a Pan-Canadian Public Health Network, it is not what Canadians or CMA envisioned in terms of providing leadership on the development of a national public health strategy and a consistent and co-ordinated approach to health emergencies. The discussion paper is proposing that a CPHA be the centralized responsibility centre or ‘co-ordinating node’ of a Pan-Canadian Public Health Network that would develop national public health strategies and co-ordinate responses to public health emergencies. While the Network is necessary to facilitate intergovernmental co-operation, CMA believes that it is now time to move beyond traditional processes that, in the past, have often hindered the country’s ability to respond rapidly to address pan-Canadian problems. Therefore in its briefs to both the Naylor and Kirby Committees, the CMA proposed the creation of an independent CPHA to provide leadership and comprehensive public health expertise in the development of a strategic pan Canadian approach to public health planning and services. These CMA briefs speak to many of the issues pertaining to the CPHA and CPHO that are raised in the federal discussion paper. CMA proposals for a CPHA as outlined below address the questions of mission and mandate, accountability and transparency posed by the paper. The CPHA, as described by CMA, would become the lead national agency on public health matters with a broad mandate to co-ordinate all aspects of planning for national public health emergencies, provide ongoing national health surveillance and work closely with provinces/territories to reinforce other essential public health functions. To effectively carry out its mandate the CPHA structure must respect five guiding principles. It must be: * Independent – At arm’s length from government, insulated from day-to-day vagaries of political pressures while remaining accountable to Canadians. * Science-based – Adherence to the highest standards of risk assessment and decision-making with a view to safeguarding the health of Canadians. * Transparent – Open to public scrutiny and encouraging public participation in its activities. * Responsive – Characterized by a nimble decision-making process and a capability of deploying resources and expertise quickly and efficiently to any part of the country. * Collaborative – Partnership-oriented, fostering collaboration with other federal, provincial and non-governmental partners. CMA has recommended that the CPHA be established as an arms length, adequately resourced agency within the purview of the federal government. Under this approach, the CPHA would be structured on a corporate model in which decision-making powers are vested in an expert advisory board. The board, in turn, would be accountable to Parliament and the public for the exercise of these powers. The CPHA would be created through new federal legislation but would remain under the health portfolio, with accountability to Parliament through the health minister. The chief public health officer would head the CPHA, oversee the day-to-day operation of the office, be the federal government’s chief medical officer of health, and act as the lead scientific voice for public health in Canada. This structure would mark a departure from the status quo in that the level of professional autonomy would increase and the level of ministerial involvement in professional issues would be reduced. This would contribute to making the CPHA more credible as a science-based organization. The board governance structure would encourage participation from the broader public health community and could therefore be more effective in creating partnerships with other key players. Conclusion The CMA commends you and the federal and provincial/territorial governments for the evident commitment to address the public health challenges facing this nation. It is unfortunate that it took a public health tragedy to bring this commitment to the forefront but never the less the public health community in Canada stands ready to work with governments to achieve a strong and responsive public health system. As part of that community the medical profession is ready and willing to support initiatives that will improve public health programs and services that ultimately make Canada a safer and healthier place to live. We do not support a continuation of the status quo. We must seize this opportunity to create a public health system that that can take the best elements from the past while embracing new innovative approaches to the future. Sincerely, Sunil V. Patel, MB, ChB President SVP/ac 1 Answering the Wake-Up Call: Canada’s Public Health Action Plan, June 2003. Available: http://www.cma.ca/cma/menu/displayMenu.do?tab=422&skin=432&pMenuId=1&pSubMenuId=2&pageId=/staticContent/HTML/N0/l2/where_we_stand/political/index.htm
Documents
Less detail

Non-prescription availability of low-dose codeine products

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13734
Date
2017-11-7
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2017-11-7
Topics
Pharmaceuticals/ prescribing/ cannabis/ marijuana/ drugs
Text
Submission to the Health Canada consultation on the potential risks, benefits and impacts of changes to the regulations to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would require all products containing codeine to be sold by prescription only The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide this submission in response to Health Canada's notice as published in the Canada Gazette, Part I1 for interested stakeholders to provide comments on the potential risks, benefits, and impacts of changes to the regulations to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would require all products containing codeine to be sold by prescription only. Codeine is a widely used narcotic analgesic in Canada - low dose formulations are currently sold without a prescription, when in combination with at least two other medications. It is not available for self-selection, but kept behind the counter in pharmacies. However, serious concerns have been raised about the safety of this practice in recent years.2,3,4 A literature review examining over the counter medicine abuse in several countries found that "there is a recognized problem internationally involving a range of medicines and potential harms," including codeine-based medicines.5 Doctors support patients in the management of acute and chronic pain, as well as addictions, and as such we have long been concerned about the harms associated with opioid use, including codeine. Codeine is considered to be "a poor analgesic in its own right," for which there are more suitable alternatives.6 In addition, genetic factors can substantially affect the metabolism of codeine into morphine, resulting in concentrations that vary from person to person. This can lead to potentially serious consequences, even at conventional doses, particularly in children.2 Codeine has the potential for dependence. Studies show an increase in non-therapeutic use of codeine, including over the counter formulations, leading to increases in morbidity and mortality as well as social costs. 7,8,9 An Australian study noted that "codeine-related deaths (with and without other drug toxicity) are increasing as the consumption of codeine-based products increases."10 Ontario data shows that over 500 people began methadone treatment for non-prescription codeine, between 2011 and 2014.3 In addition, over the counter codeine is often combined with acetaminophen or ASA, which also present concerns in terms of toxicity, particularly in higher doses. A review of the process examining the problems related to codeine-based over the counter formulations in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom found that each of their respective committees had decided, based on the existing evidence, "to minimize harm by using regulatory levers to restrict availability."11 Many European countries have also implemented a prescription-only status for products containing codeine, as well as some U.S. States. Some Canadian hospitals have removed codeine from their formularies, and Manitoba ended the over the counter sales last year12. Given this reality and, as part of the CMA's advocacy to reduce the harms related to opioid use, the CMA supports the requirement that all products containing codeine be sold by prescription only, as this is both a public health and a patient safety issue. Moving codeine to prescription-only will enable limiting its use and closer monitoring of patients with the view of preventing harms.10 A challenge for policy makers and prescribers is to ensure patients still have access to treatments that are appropriate for their clinical conditions.13 At the same time, we recognize that there could be unintended consequences when moving low-dose codeine to prescription-only status, particularly for those who have come to depend on its availability over-the-counter. Some may choose to seek out illicit markets for these products or purchase other, more powerful, narcotics as a substitute. Authorities must develop educational tools to inform people about less-harmful pain-relief options. As well, a reasonable timeframe for implementation of this measure should be given to allow for patients to find appropriate alternatives. The CMA continues to urge governments to increase access to services and treatment options for addiction and pain management, as well as harm reduction.14 1 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: Notice to interested parties - Non-prescription availability of low-dose codeine products. Canada Gazette Part I. 2017 Sep 09, 151(36). Available: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2017/2017-09-09/html/notice-avis-eng.php#ne3 (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 2 MacDonald N, MacLeod SM. Has the time come to phase out codeine? Can Med Assoc J 2010;182(17):1825. Available: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101411 (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 3 Yang J, Zlomislic D. Star investigation: Canada's invisible codeine problem. The Toronto Star. Jan. 17, 2015. Available: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/17/star-investigation-canadas-invisible-codeine-problem.html (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 4 MacKinnon, JIJ. Tighter regulations needed for over-the-counter codeine in Canada. Can Pharm J Rev Pharm Can, 2016;149(6):322-4. Available: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/182/17/1825 (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 5 Cooper RJ. Over-the-counter medicine abuse - a review of the literature. J Subst Use, 2013 Apr;18(2):82-107. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603170/pdf/JSU-18-82.pdf (accessed: 2017 Oct 23). 6 Vagg M. Four reasons why codeine should not be sold without a prescription. The Conversation. Apr. 30, 2015. Available: http://theconversation.com/four-reasons-why-codeine-should-not-be-sold-without-prescription-41025 (accessed: 2017 Oct 23). 7 Nielsen S, Cameron J, Pahoki S . Over the counter codeine dependence final report 2010. Victoria: Turning Point, 2010. Available: http://atdc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/OTC_CODEINE_REPORT.pdf (accessed 2017 Nov 07). 8 Fischer B, Ialomiteanu A, Boak A, et al. Prevalence and key covariates of non-medical prescription opioid use among the general secondary student and adult populations in Ontario, Canada. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013;32(3):276-87. 9 Compton WM, Volkow ND. Major increases in opioid analgesic abuse in the United States: concerns and strategies. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006 Feb 01;81(2):103-7. 10Roxburgh A. et. al. Trends and characteristics of accidental and intentional codeine overdose deaths in Australia. Med J Aust 2015; 203(7): 299 11 Tobin CL, Dobbin M, McAvoy B. Regulatory responses to over-the-counter codeine analgesic misuse in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. N Z J Public Health 2013 Oct. 37(5): 483-488. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.12099/abstract (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 12 Zlomislic, D. & Yang, J. The Toronto Star. Jan 12, 2016. Available: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2016/01/13/manitoba-sets-new-rule-limiting-codeine.html (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 13 Canadian Medical Association. Opening Statement addressing the opioid crisis to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: The Association; 2016 Oct. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/submissions/hesa-opioid-study-opening-remarks-oct-18-2016-e.pdf (accessed: 2017 Nov 7). 14 Canadian Medical Association. Harms Associated with Opioids and Other Psychoactive Prescription Drugs. CMA Policy, 2015. Ottawa: The Association; 2015. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/policies/cma_policy_harms_associated_with_opioids_and_other_psychoactive_prescription_drugs_pd15-06-e.pdf (accessed: 2017 Nov 7).
Documents
Less detail

37 records – page 3 of 4.